From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 00:47:15 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA28715; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA28686 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:09:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id AAA20654;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 00:09:46 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1 (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:09:42 -0500
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199902271204.AA22823@waltz.rahul.net>
References: <Your message of "Sat, 27 Feb 99 02:58:25 PST.">
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I just got a message with this (within the body) header (not from Michelle,
this is a separate quote):

>This mail is not Spam and is intended to serve as a resource to businesses
and 
>professionals seeking top quality Internet services. This mail conforms to 
>the most recent government ruling relating to unsolicited e-mail. If by 
>receiving this e-mail you have been offended, we sincerely 
>apologize.  If you would prefer not to receive additional mail from us, 
>follow the instructions at the end of this document.

Of course, the mail is spam, and the senders are filthy liars.  My point is
that the mail has to be judged by the receiver, not the sender.

At 04:04 AM 2/27/99 -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:

>I feel much better now that I have an objective non-spammer-type
>reason to not classify Topica's email as spam.  Does this explanation
>seem right to others as well?  How about you, Nick? Also, since this
>explanation wasn't proposed before, I don't see Nick's accusation of
>"spam" absurd.

I've been on the net for so long I remember whe it was non-commercial.  

If someone sends me one-on-one unsolicited e-mail to verify information
that they are not going to use for commercial purposes, or, in an extreme,
that they are using to get backup for an article that they plan on selling,
I'd certainly say that is likely not spam.

I tend to cut one-on-one mail, that is, mail addressed to me by a human and
composed for me by a live human a lot of slack.  I think most folks do.  I
cut machine generated mail little or no slack.

When someone sends me e-mail to try and get me to assist them in a
commercial enterprise (and they are not trying to hire me), and that mail
is not a one off composed by an individual to me, but is, instead machine
composed and sent, I consider that to be passing the test for spam.
Especially since I've gotten three copies so far.

Vince was real up-front about topica being commercial.  I've got to give
them that.  But these e-mails they are sending are to further their
commercial enterprise and not to verify your public information.

>  Especially when the first arguments offered him were
>the very same ones we used to hear from Spamford. Nick just didn't
>take into account that we make an exception for UCE that is purely
>journalistic and no one offered it is a reason.

If you read the e-mail from topica in particular, they are trying to get
you to "opt-in" to making their service more valuable by adding your data
to their site.  I don't see any aspects of journalism or research in that.

I shoot black powder cowboy guns for a hobby.  Black powder fouls like
crazy compared to smokeless powder and it combines with modern lubes to
form hard lumps that will jam your revolver.  I found an excellent product,
called Ballistol, that is water soluble oil and never forms hard lumps -
the fouling stays soft and you can wash a gun off and spray it with
ballistol and it will emulisfy the water off of the gun and dry to leave an
oil film.  And it is accepted as food safe so that you can use it on
kitchen appliances.  It also makes a good leather preservative.  

I was really disappointed when I was spammed by the US Distributor, since I
felt that once I ran out of stock, I would find some other way to get it
(there is now someone else importing it, I'm told, so I can buy from them).

I guess my point here is that the quality of the product has little or
nothing to do with the evil of spamming.  Before they spammed me, I really
wanted their product to succed, so I'd tell people about it on the cowboy
lists and when I was shooting.   This was absolutely the best product for
this sort of thing that I or anyone on the cowboy lists knew about, and
they are still stinking evil spammers.
--
"I've got guns.   I can't hit crap with them." - Howard Stern
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 02:51:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA07163; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:19:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA06794 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 02:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA13744
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:00:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id FAA22625
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:00:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA04264
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:00:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:00:21 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
In-Reply-To: <v04103d40b2ffd2c9c900@plaidworks.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903010455250.4206-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:

> I deliver literally tens of thousands of messages to AOL a week.
> And I don't have so much as a burble. [...] 

Same here.  Other than an expected rate of filled mail boxes and
closed accounts, I don't recall ever seeing a problem with AOL.  
This is more than I can say for many of the other large providers.


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 09:01:29 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA12773; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA12766 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25046;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:47:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301084743.B24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:47:43 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <v04103d1ab2fd066c0ad4@plaidworks.com> <199902271058.AA19793@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199902271058.AA19793@waltz.rahul.net>; from Michelle Dick on Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 02:58:25AM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 02:58:25AM -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> Chuq wrote:
> > 
> > It ain't spam just because one person doesn't like it and calls it 
> > such. 
> 
> quite true.  What is spam?  UCE, yes? 

The correct definition of spam is UBE (unsolicited bulk email).
(The reason for the B instead of the C is that it removes the
type of content from the discussion.  This is both deliberate
and necessary, because the definition of spam has to be context-free.)

For example, if I were to go grab the list of mailing lists from
PAML and send every list-manager a bit of mail saying "Hey, I'm
a really nice guy, I'm going to advertise your mailing list",
that piece of mail clearly meets the U, B, and E criteria and
is thus undeniably and unambiguously spam.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 09:47:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA12824; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:50:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA12812 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:50:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25081;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:51:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:51:14 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Stephanie da Silva <arielle@Taronga.COM>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <199902271416.IAA08370@bonkers.taronga.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199902271416.IAA08370@bonkers.taronga.com>; from Stephanie da Silva on Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 08:16:54AM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 08:16:54AM -0600, Stephanie da Silva wrote:
> Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>:
> 
> > Requests to publish another's information or verification of public
> > information can be classified as an execption to UCE being spam.
> > While it is, certainly, unsolicited, commercial, and email, I think it
> > is reasonable to make it an exception.
>  
> I think it depends on two things: the intent of the originator and
> how the message is perceived by the recipient.

Absolutely not.  To add either of these nebulous and unquanifiable
criteria to the definition of spam renders it unworkable in both a
practical and legal sense.

Again: the correct definition of spam is UBE, "unsolicited bulk email".
Anything which meets this criteria is clearly spam, regardless of
intent, regardless of how it's received, regardless of content,
regardless of the number of complaints.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 10:15:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA13092; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:06:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA13085 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25205
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:08:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301090826.E24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:08:26 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Size of HTML vs plaintext
References: <19990225210707.A22194@gsp.org> <199902251900.NAA10914@celery.tssi.com>; <199902281710.claire.99025380@siberia.demon.co.uk> <v04103d30b2ff94a02633@plaidworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <v04103d30b2ff94a02633@plaidworks.com>; from Chuq Von Rospach on Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 04:53:22PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 04:53:22PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> My question is -- does it really matter? Adding 20% to a 2K text 
> message just doesn't bother me.

Nor does it matter very much to me.  However, as I described earlier,
I routinely see documents which are 1000% larger.  (I'll start trying
to keep track of what they are, where they come from, and what tool
(if known) generated them.) 

> Esthetically, it's unclean. From a practical or technical standpoint,
> isn't this all just statistically insiginificant?

No, it's not.  Depending on who you ask (and the methodology they
use to study the issue) mail is one of the primary consumers of
bandwidth, disk space, CPU cycles, and other resources.

> If people are worried about bandwidth usage, why 
> aren't they fighting things like usenet's binary distributions, where 
> you might actually make a ripple in the usage patterns of the net?

I am.  Have been for some considerable time.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 10:30:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA12853; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA12835 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25126;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:56:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301085624.D24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:56:24 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
References: <199902271930.NAA15472@mail.xnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199902271930.NAA15472@mail.xnet.com>; from Adam Bailey on Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> On 2/24/99 3:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote...
> 
> >On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 09:48:24PM -0800, byronl@teleport.com wrote:
> >> Is anyone else having problems with AOL subscribers? 
> >
> >It's AOL's clueless (is this any surprise?) and inappropriate anti-spam
> >tactics, which mostly seem to consist of blocking legitimate traffic
> 
> I'll back you up if you call their methods overzealous, but clueless and 
> inappropriate?

Yes. On a recent Friday morning, legitimate mailing list traffic
directed to a number of AOL subscribers was rejected (and, I might
add, with an incorrect and leading diagnostic message).  AOL later
quietly acknowledged (informally) that this was an "oops' on the part
of their anti-spam effort.
 
> Plenty of sites have no trouble. The ones that do, are the 
> ones playing fast and loose with DNS, have a bad history for allowing 
> relays, or are otherwise abusing SMTP delivery.

None of which applies to the site(s) in question.  Let me repeat that
so that you clearly understand: the site(s) in question are not playing
fast and loose with DNS, they have NEVER had relaying enabled, much
less abused, and they have NEVER abused SMTP delivery.  (I know this
because I have been personally responsible for the operation of these
site(s) from their first day of existence.)

No, the problem was AOL's clueless and inappropriate methods.  I don't
see why anyone would find this surprising, given their long history
of incompetence.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 10:47:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA12656; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from toronto.planeteer.com (toronto.planeteer.com [204.50.42.7]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA12649 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from umax1 (ba1p9.planeteer.com [204.50.144.42])
	by toronto.planeteer.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA24841
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:34:30 GMT
Message-ID: <003101be63e9$99388320$eb1a00c7@umax1>
From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" <rhiggins@cybercorp.net>
To: <list-managers@GreatCircle.com>
Subject: re: size of HTML vs. plain text
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:44:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE63BF.AEE996C0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE63BF.AEE996C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Nicolas Brouard wrote:
=20
> the HTML is 39,755 characters. It is 37% more. It is not 3 times =
bigger as
> it was said on this list.
=20
Nicolas,
=20
Most email is much smaller than that. I've sent this with Outlook =
Express.
I believe the plain text will be 1/3 the size of the HTML in this =
message,
if anyone wishes to compare them.
=20
---rob---    %% virted, soho-can & webmaster-l list facilitator %%
=20
 Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. |          ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~
      CyberCorp Inc.        |      GymVCOW - =
http://www.cybercorp.net/COW
  rhiggins@cybercorp.net    |    GymVMOO - =
http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO
 http://www.cybercorp.net   |   GymVCourses - =
http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE63BF.AEE996C0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =
HTML//EN">
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, =
Nicolas Brouard=20
wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; the HTML is 39,755 characters. It =
is 37% more.=20
It is not 3 times bigger as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt; it was said on this =
list.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nicolas,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Most email is much smaller than that. =
I've sent=20
this with Outlook Express.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I believe the plain text will be 1/3 =
the size of=20
the HTML in this message,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>if anyone wishes to compare =
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial =
size=3D2>&nbsp;<BR>---rob---&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
%% virted, soho-can &amp; webmaster-l list facilitator %%</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;Dr.Robert N. =
Higgins Ph.D.=20
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA =
VIRTUALES=20
~ ~ ~<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CyberCorp=20
Inc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
GymVCOW - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.cybercorp.net/COW">http://www.cybercorp.net/COW</A><BR=
>&nbsp;=20
<A=20
href=3D"mailto:rhiggins@cybercorp.net">rhiggins@cybercorp.net</A>&nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;=20
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; GymVMOO - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO">http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMO=
O</A><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.cybercorp.net">http://www.cybercorp.net</A>&nbsp;&nbsp=
;=20
|&nbsp;&nbsp; GymVCourses - <A=20
href=3D"http://www.cybercorp.net/gym">http://www.cybercorp.net/gym</A>v</=
FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE63BF.AEE996C0--


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 12:01:53 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA14772; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.cyberlink.ch (dns.cyberlink.ch [193.246.253.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA14765 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:49:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from quill.thinkcoach.com (gate6-91.cyberlink.ch [212.55.195.91])
	by dns.cyberlink.ch (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA21655
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:51:03 +0100
Received: (from norbert@localhost)
	by quill.thinkcoach.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01358;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:50:41 +0100
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:50:41 +0100
Message-Id: <199903011550.QAA01358@quill.thinkcoach.com>
From: Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoach.com>
Prefer-Language: de, en, fr
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903010455250.4206-100000@katie.vnet.net> (message
	from murr rhame on Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:00:21 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903010455250.4206-100000@katie.vnet.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> Same here.  Other than an expected rate of filled mail boxes and
> closed accounts, I don't recall ever seeing a problem with AOL.  

This particular problem with AOL is likely to go unnoticed for a long
time, since AOL doesn't send a bounce or give any other indication of
a problem when messages are deleted by AOL's spam filters.

-- NB.

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 14:45:32 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA23674; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:14:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id OAA23667 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA02583
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:14:27 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA18762; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:13:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org> 
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 99 14:13:52 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Rich wrote:
> 
> Again: the correct definition of spam is UBE, "unsolicited bulk email".

Reasonable people disagree, but nevermind, for the moment let's go by
your definition.  

Define "bulk"

> Anything which meets this criteria is clearly spam, regardless of
> intent, regardless of how it's received, regardless of content,
> regardless of the number of complaints.

So, are Stephanie's emails requesting information to the appx 1/3 of
list-owners who are on her list unsolicited (i.e. they didn't ask to
be added to PAML), spam?

And what about Topica's emails to list-owners whose lists are listed
on their site not at the list-owner's request, offering archiving,
spam?  How many do they have to send before it qualifies as "bulk",
and thus is spam?

If I have a one-time mailing to 10,000 people, is it OK as long as I
spread it out over enough time or if it is triggered by third parties
(who don't know they are doing so)?

-- 
Michelle Dick             artemis@rahul.net            East Palo Alto, CA

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 15:02:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA22956; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:31:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA22946 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:31:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA22048 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 23147 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 1999 00:47:34 -0000
Message-ID: <19990228194734.M438@blank.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:47:34 -0500
From: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
To: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>,
        Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <v03110714b2fb131d672c@[207.252.88.49]> <v04103d30b2fbc3790189@plaidworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <v04103d30b2fbc3790189@plaidworks.com>; from Chuq Von Rospach on Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 07:22:46PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

In the immortal words of Chuq Von Rospach (chuqui@plaidworks.com):
> 
> Unlike all sorts of other services that sign you up and then offer 
> you a chance to try to get the hell back out. I got another one 
> today, which I need to check up on. I'm magically in some neat new 
> server known as alexa.com. Anyone know anything about these chaps?

Alexa is Brewster Kahle's (of WAIS fame) current project.  Their basic
goal is an ongoing, complete archive of the web.

(Me, I think they're really a scam to drive up Seagate's stock price...)

-n

-----------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
               "Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows '95"
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>-----------------------------------------------


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 15:17:25 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA20877; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:42:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA20775 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA19213 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA27430
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:42:20 -0800
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:09:42 -0500.
             <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:42:20 -0800
Message-ID: <27428.920320940@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>,
Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:

>I just got a message with this (within the body) header (not from Michelle,
>this is a separate quote):
>
>>This mail is not Spam...

Every message I have ever received that said that was in fact a piece of spam.


-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 16:16:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA14389; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA14382 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26110
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:24:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301102455.A26068@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:24:55 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
References: <199902271930.NAA15472@mail.xnet.com> <v04103d40b2ffd2c9c900@plaidworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <v04103d40b2ffd2c9c900@plaidworks.com>; from Chuq Von Rospach on Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 09:16:28PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 28, 1999 at 09:16:28PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I deliver literally tens of thousands of messages to AOL a week. And 
> I don't have so much as a burble. They never cause problems with *my* 
> content, and I see no signs of any kind of "legitimate" traffic 
> blocking or overzealous spam blocking.

The fact that you have not observed the phenomenon in question is not
evidence that it doesn't exist.  In fact, it was discussed here on 1/29,
it was clearly transitory in nature (i.e. it was not the result of any
kind of permanent spamblocking) and it clearly had the effect of denying
legitimate email traffic which had passed successfully both the evening
before and the following day.

In other words, all of the available evidence suggests a screw-up.  Further,
the note which Mitch Collinsworth was kind enough to forward gives one
possible explanation -- although it's not completely obvious what
the cause-and-effect relationhip is, because the note that Mitch forwarded
involved routing and the observed problem shows no overt evidence of being
related to routing.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 16:31:28 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA17881; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA17846 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aum (ip11.proper.com [165.227.249.11])
	by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA12926;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org>
X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.25 (Beta)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:48:26 -0800
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <paulh@imc.org>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <199903010427.AA01338@waltz.rahul.net>
References: <v04103d30b2fbc3790189@plaidworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 08:27 PM 2/28/99 -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
>Or rather they ask for something of value from you for free and hope
>that you think what they offer in return is of greater value.
>Assuming that it is is rather presumptuous on their part.

Not really. I bet the vast majority of the list managers do *not* get a 
penny for their archives, and some probably even pay their ISPs to run the 
archives. In your case, yes, you have very little incentive to let someone 
else duplicate your content and thereby take money out of your pocket, but 
I would bet you are the rare list owner who is making money on their archives.

I think this is an interesting point for Topica: they can engender even 
more good will by offering to list owners to point their archive pointer to 
your archive. Since you've already said no to them archiving, they're not 
losing anything, and they are increasing the market for "archives that make 
ad revenue". They might also consider giving you a split, but I think we're 
too early in the ad game for that to happen (although I would love it if we 
could...).

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 16:49:42 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA17227; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:08:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crabcake.akamai.com (access.akamai.com [4.17.143.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA17220 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from claude.akamai.com (claude.akamai.com [10.10.123.141])
	by crabcake.akamai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA17783
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:09:46 -0500
Received: (from dshaw@localhost)
	by claude.akamai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA00571
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:21:57 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:21:57 -0500
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
To: List Managers <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: Size of HTML vs plaintext
Message-ID: <19990228142156.A540@jabberwocky.com>
Mail-Followup-To: List Managers <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
References: <199902251900.NAA10914@celery.tssi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <199902251900.NAA10914@celery.tssi.com>; from Mike Nolan on Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 01:00:20PM -0600
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CB3B415/2048/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18
X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/
X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full)
X-Current-Email-Backlog: 194
X-Pointless-Random-Number: 243
X-Silly-Header: It sure is.
X-Time-Til-Y2K: 43 weeks, 5 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes, 16 seconds
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 01:00:20PM -0600, Mike Nolan wrote:

> Regarding the recent discussion on html-aware mailers (pine, I think), 
> was that the UNIX version or pc-pine?  As a long-time character-based UNIX 
> and elm user, I find the UNIX versions of pine both limiting and annoying 
> at times, and I've never had much luck with pc-pine.  (Or taken the time 
> to learn X, which always strikes me as the wrong solution, no matter what
> the problem is.)
> 
> Too bad elm doesn't have the html engine from lynx in it.

For all intents and purposes, mutt does.  It has ability to run lynx in
the background to decode the html and capture it for viewing within mutt.

I like it.  It's clean, simple, and elegant.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw@jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 19:06:07 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA28231; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA28224 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:17:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA15354
	; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:22:56 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v0410440db300f52d282e@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
References: <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:54:17 -0800
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 2:13 PM -0800 3/1/99, Michelle Dick wrote:

> Reasonable people disagree, but nevermind, for the moment let's go by
> your definition.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the slippery slope. (grin)

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 19:26:05 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA28492; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA28485 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA18670;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:36:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA22749;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:37:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23695;
	Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:37:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:37:33 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: Norbert Bollow <nb@thinkcoach.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
In-Reply-To: <199903011550.QAA01358@quill.thinkcoach.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903012133090.23453-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> > Same here.  Other than an expected rate of filled mail boxes and
> > closed accounts, I don't recall ever seeing a problem with AOL.  
> 
> This particular problem with AOL is likely to go unnoticed for a
> long time, since AOL doesn't send a bounce or give any other
> indication of a problem when messages are deleted by AOL's spam
> filters.

I spoke too soon.  One of my list admins reported a mass bounce from
AOL today (01MAR99).  Error was 550 user unknown.


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  1 22:30:16 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA00767; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA00760 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:48:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA19392
	; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:52:21 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04104410b30128cc4fa2@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <27428.920320940@monkeys.com>
References: Your message of Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:09:42 -0500.          
   <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 21:34:14 -0800
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Does this mean you just sent spam, Ronald? Because it's in your message.


At 12:42 PM -0800 3/1/99, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>,
> Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
>
>>I just got a message with this (within the body) header (not from Michelle,
>>this is a separate quote):
>>
>>>This mail is not Spam...
>
> Every message I have ever received that said that was in fact a 
> piece of spam.
>
>
> -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
> -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
> -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
>
>     "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
>                                                   -- Steve Atkins

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 00:48:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA01295; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA01286 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:31:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16839 invoked from network); 2 Mar 1999 06:32:43 -0000
Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (206.109.2.48)
  by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 1999 06:32:43 -0000
Received: (from arielle@localhost)
          by bonkers.taronga.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id AAA14909
          for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:32:00 -0600 (CST)
          (envelope-from arielle)
From: Stephanie da Silva <arielle@Taronga.COM>
Message-Id: <199903020632.AAA14909@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:31:59 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Michelle Dick: 

> So, are Stephanie's emails requesting information to the appx 1/3 of
> list-owners who are on her list unsolicited (i.e. they didn't ask to
> be added to PAML), spam?

I told you already, I don't query the list owners on these.  I
only query the servers.


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 02:40:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA06731; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA06681 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:00:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA06842;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:02:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:02:11 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>; from Michelle Dick on Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 02:13:52PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 02:13:52PM -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> > Again: the correct definition of spam is UBE, "unsolicited bulk email".
> 
> Reasonable people disagree, but nevermind, for the moment let's go by
> your definition.  

This isn't my definition.  This is the definition which has been hammered
out, refined, debated, tested, etc., by the anti-spam community over a
period of many years.  It is deliberately phrased in this manner in
order to avoid the unnecessary issues of motivation, number of complaints,
and so on -- and to avoid free speech issues, which are frequently
raised, red-herring fashion, by spammers.  It seeks to define spam
as conduct, not speech.

> Define "bulk"

Hmmm, I would have thought it self-evident, but let's try "not sent
individually by one human being to another".

> So, are Stephanie's emails requesting information to the appx 1/3 of
> list-owners who are on her list unsolicited (i.e. they didn't ask to
> be added to PAML), spam?

Yes.

> And what about Topica's emails to list-owners whose lists are listed
> on their site not at the list-owner's request, offering archiving, spam?

Yes.

[ Aside: I suggest that any entity whose business model cannot work
without resorting to spam has a flawed business model and should either
abandon that model or the business itself. ]

> If I have a one-time mailing to 10,000 people, is it OK as long as I
> spread it out over enough time or if it is triggered by third parties
> (who don't know they are doing so)?

Is it unsolicited?  If so, it is spam.  The time period you spread it
out over is not relevant to the definition of spam.  Nor can it be:
if diluting the impact exonerated the activity of spamming in any way,
spammers would simply hang their hats on it as justification for
their activity.  They have already done so with far flimsier rationales.
For example, spammers frequently cite proposed-but-never-passed legislation
as if it had the force of law.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 03:00:54 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA03095; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id XAA03088 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA01008
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:27:17 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA24617; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 23:27:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org> 
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 99 23:27:15 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Paul wrote:
> At 08:27 PM 2/28/99 -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> >Or rather they ask for something of value from you for free and hope
> >that you think what they offer in return is of greater value.
> >Assuming that it is is rather presumptuous on their part.
> 
> Not really. I bet the vast majority of the list managers do *not* get a 
> penny for their archives, and some probably even pay their ISPs to run the 
> archives. In your case, yes, you have very little incentive to let someone 
> else duplicate your content and thereby take money out of your pocket, but 
> I would bet you are the rare list owner who is making money on their archives.

Perhaps.  But perhaps I am because I tried.  I had no idea that it
would be so *easy* to get advertising dollars.  I had no idea that my
web site pages were considered "unsold inventory", that people paid on
the basis of some weird measure called "CPM" and "click-throughs" or
that people would compete to get me to put a few lines of html on my
pages and they would do all the work and tracking and pay for the
bandwidth, give me real-time monitoring, have it set up in 4 hours
time, AND send me a regular checks just for the trouble of those few
lines of html that they supplied me to be cut and paste.

Given that Topica isn't the only game in town, given that anyone can
get advertising dollars by putting things people want on web pages, I
can see there might come a time where companies like Topica will need
to compete for list archives, perhaps offering a yearly fee for the
priviledge, more if it is an exclusive license.

Any list owner would be a fool to give away in a non-revocable fashion
that which might be worth $$ later.  It would also be foolish to give
up the option of exclusivity.  I know this isn't a problem with
Topica, since operating in the best interests of list owners means
that the list owner's option of deletion must be a perpetual option,
but it is something list owners need to keep in mind as more and more
list archivers come in to being.  Unlike Topica, they might not have
the list owner's best interests in mind and not be willing to let list
owners keep the future option of exclusivity (by refusing deletion).

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 03:25:26 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA07409; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA07396 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 02:45:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07232;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:47:06 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302054703.A7220@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 05:47:03 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Cc: owner-new-list@hypatia.cs.wisc.edu
Subject: Spammer targetting recently-announced mailing lists
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Recently I announced a mailing list via the "new-list" mailing list
run by the Internet Scout Project.  Apparently, this spammer (see below)
is grabbing these announcements and feeding them to a form-mail generator
which then spams the list-owners in an attempt to glad-hand them into
allowing the membership of their mailing lists to spammed.

I think you can fairly well imagine what my response to this is.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org


> Subject: whitewater
> To: rsk@gsp.org
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:52:31 -0800
> From: Quyen Lam <qxl@sift.com>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am the marketing manager at Sift, Inc. ( http://www.sift.com ), 
> and I match clients with email discussion/broadcast forums whose 
> subscribers are interested in the survey topic or ad announcement 
> a client wants to distribute.  This approach to email advertising 
> works to the benefit of all involved: list/forum owners, subscribers, 
> and the business community.  This explains its popularity.
> 
> We are looking for forums that accept advertising to promote 
> to our clients.  Advertising takes many forms, according to what
> the list/forum owners feel comfortable.  Do you allow for any form of 
> commercial announcements on whitewater?  Would you like to know
> more about ways of generating revenue to support your group?  
> Are you looking for free list hosting or ad swap?  Do you know of 
> other lists interested in advertising that I could contact?
> 
> Sift is involved with every aspect of email services and can help 
> you in many ways, not necessarily advertising.  Feel free to contact 
> me either by phone or email.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Quyen Lam
> Sift, Inc.
> (408) 541-7607
> qxl@sift.com
> 

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 05:13:16 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA10256; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mushi.colo.neosoft.com (mushi.colo.neosoft.com [206.109.6.82]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id EAA10245 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 15553 invoked from network); 2 Mar 1999 12:16:26 -0000
Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (206.109.2.48)
  by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 1999 12:16:26 -0000
Received: (from arielle@localhost)
          by bonkers.taronga.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA21169
          for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:16:25 -0600 (CST)
          (envelope-from arielle)
From: Stephanie da Silva <arielle@Taronga.COM>
Message-Id: <199903021216.GAA21169@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:16:24 -0600 (CST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Rich Kulawiec: 

> > Define "bulk"
> 
> Hmmm, I would have thought it self-evident, but let's try "not sent
> individually by one human being to another".
> 
> > So, are Stephanie's emails requesting information to the appx 1/3 of
> > list-owners who are on her list unsolicited (i.e. they didn't ask to
> > be added to PAML), spam?
> 
> Yes.

I fail your definition, as I send out all my mail individually by
hand.



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 07:00:43 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA12095; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA12088 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:18:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA08676;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302092020.A8581@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:20:20 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Alex Guerrero <alex@get.topica.com>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Beta site at Topica
References: <000301be59c1$220ead60$cd431ecc@alex>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <000301be59c1$220ead60$cd431ecc@alex>; from Alex Guerrero on Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 07:29:21AM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 07:29:21AM -0800, Alex Guerrero wrote:
> from the web interface.  From your messages on list-managers, I understand
> you are opposed to third parties offering this service, [...]

Yes, I am.  If I wanted a web interface, I'm perfectly capable of
constructing one and deploying it.  I might even do that at some point.

But I don't -- at least not at the moment -- and I think it's the height
of arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of topica or anyone else
(I don't mean to single y'all out) to presume that I do.  What you
are calling a "service" I call a self-serving pain in the ass.

As far as I can tell, your entire business model is built on the premise
that *you* can profit from my mailing lists and their participants,
as well as from other mailing lists and their participants.  I find this
offensively greedy as well as in direct conflict with the spirit of
open participation, and I do not wish to be associated with it in any way.

So let me just make it clear: you are DIRECTED to cease and any all
archiving activities involving lists run through gsp.org; any content
currently on your site must be removed.  (In fact, all such lists contain
an explicit compilation copyright in my name, which is there for just
such an occasion.)  You are further informed that all messages from
me personally, regardless of what mailing list they are sent to, are
copyrighted under the terms of the Berne convention and may not be
reproduced on your site without my express permission.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 08:21:46 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA13469; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA13460 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:52:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA32258;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:53:07 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990302103613.03914ad0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:36:13 -0500
To: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <v04104410b30128cc4fa2@plaidworks.com>
References: <27428.920320940@monkeys.com>
 <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 09:34 PM 3/1/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>Does this mean you just sent spam, Ronald? Because it's in your message.

No, he means that my message was spam, Chuq.  I'm glad to see you are being
so serious about this matter, and not attempting to confuse the issues at
all. :-)

--
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 08:40:04 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA13502; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:57:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA13495 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA09390
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:51:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302105051.A9383@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:50:51 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org> <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>; from Michelle Dick on Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 11:27:15PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 11:27:15PM -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> Any list owner would be a fool to give away in a non-revocable fashion
> that which might be worth $$ later.  It would also be foolish to give
> up the option of exclusivity.

I think it is also worth considering the copyrights of the list participants.
As far as I can tell (and IANAL) each message sent to a mailing list remains
copyrighted by its originator under the terms of the Berne Convention.

On all of the mailing lists that I run, that right is explicitly retained
(although I don't think that's necessary for it to exist), while the
rights to the compilation are explicitly granted to me -- *not* because
I intend to make a profit from the content, but because I wish to prevent
anyone else from doing so and in doing so, violating the copyrights of
both the participants and myself.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 10:18:22 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA14950; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net (dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.128.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA14943 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 6357 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 1999 17:40:48 -0000
Delivered-To: fixup-list-managers@GreatCircle.COM@fixme
Received: (qmail 6264 invoked by uid 0); 2 Mar 1999 17:40:45 -0000
Received: from kdsl86.dnvr.uswest.net (HELO home.thisistrue.dnvr.uswest.net) (209.181.70.86)
  by dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 2 Mar 1999 17:40:45 -0000
Message-Id: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
X-Sender: thisistrue@pop.dnvr.uswest.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 10:39:26 -0700
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Randy Cassingham <arcie@thisistrue.com>
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
In-Reply-To: <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org>
References: <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
 <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org>
 <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 05:02 AM 3/2/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said:

>On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 02:13:52PM -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
>> > Again: the correct definition of spam is UBE, "unsolicited bulk email".
>> 
>> Reasonable people disagree, but nevermind, for the moment let's go by
>> your definition.  
>
>This isn't my definition.  This is the definition which has been hammered
>out, refined, debated, tested, etc., by the anti-spam community over a
>period of many years.

Um... WHICH community?

I consider THE leader in anti-spam efforts to be CAUCE -- the Coalition
Against Unsolicited COMMERCIAL Email.  It does appear, then, that
reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam.


 + Randy Cassingham, author of "This is True" * arcie@thisistrue.com +
 | http://www.thisistrue.com * autoresponder TrueInfo@thisistrue.com |
 + FIGHT SPAM!! Send blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for details +


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 11:28:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA17568; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from public.lists.apple.com (public.lists.apple.com [17.254.0.151]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA17561 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:08:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (A17-219-12-172.apple.com [17.219.12.172])
	by public.lists.apple.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA50222
	; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:10:18 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04104406b301e5a51023@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990302103613.03914ad0@127.0.0.1>
References: <v04104410b30128cc4fa2@plaidworks.com>
 <27428.920320940@monkeys.com> <3.0.5.32.19990301000942.03e89b10@127.0.0.1>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:00:46 -0800
To: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>,
        Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:36 AM -0500 3/2/99, Nick Simicich wrote:

>No, he means that my message was spam, Chuq.

Oh, okay. I thought my message was spam. Or maybe his message. This 
is all so confusing.

> I'm glad to see you are being
>so serious about this matter, and not attempting to confuse the issues at
>all. :-)

it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Otherwise, we'll all 
take ourselves so seriously we'll pop.

--
Chuq Von Rospach, Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com)
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
 (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 11:29:26 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA16978; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA16963 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA12634 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 05:37:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA24658
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:39:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990301083948.A24566@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:39:48 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <v03110714b2fb131d672c@[207.252.88.49]> <3.0.5.32.19990225202348.03f07320@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990225202348.03f07320@127.0.0.1>; from Nick Simicich on Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 08:23:48PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 08:23:48PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote:
> If my list is already on their server and they have not asked me for
> permission to do this, then this looks a lot like the:
> 
> >If you don't want to get spammed by us any more, reply to this address
> >with REMOVE in the subject
> 
> that spammers typically use.  I consider the subscription info to be almost
> as important as the list info.  Having it published means that I have to
> change it to keep it in sync, so I've never done that.  Did someone do it
> for me?  I doubt that they would have used the info file from the more or
> less defunct list, "best-of-diabetic".

Absolutely correct.  This is well down the slippery slope to the completely
unethical and indefensible tactics that spammers use.

> I think that ethically, they should stop using the data until they can
> discover which data was not voluntarialy submitted, and get back to the
> company that sold them that data and find out what the heck is going on.
> Because if they believe that all this data was submitted and not gleaned, I
> think that they are wrong.

YES!  Of course, since they're doing this to profit off the hard (and
almost entirely volunteer) work of list managers WITHOUT compensating
them for it financially, I suspect that they'll do what's profitable
rather than what's right.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 11:54:00 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA17040; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA17031 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA15663 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id KAA12114 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:36:29 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199903011636.KAA12114@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:36:34 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
To: <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

(Why do my messages always take two days to get through to the list?)

On 3/1/99 7:56 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote...

>On Sat, Feb 27, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
>>On 2/24/99 3:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote...
>> 
>>>On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 09:48:24PM -0800, byronl@teleport.com wrote:
>>>> Is anyone else having problems with AOL subscribers? 
>>>
>>>It's AOL's clueless (is this any surprise?) and inappropriate anti-spam
>>>tactics, which mostly seem to consist of blocking legitimate traffic
>> 
>>I'll back you up if you call their methods overzealous, but clueless and 
>>inappropriate?
>
>Yes. On a recent Friday morning, legitimate mailing list traffic
>directed to a number of AOL subscribers was rejected (and, I might
>add, with an incorrect and leading diagnostic message).  AOL later
>quietly acknowledged (informally) that this was an "oops' on the part
>of their anti-spam effort.

Yes, they've made ooopses from time to time. Everyone makes mistakes. 
That's not a sign of a system-wide policy that's out to get you, and 
they're fixed when found.

>> Plenty of sites have no trouble. The ones that do, are the 
>> ones playing fast and loose with DNS, have a bad history for allowing 
>> relays, or are otherwise abusing SMTP delivery.
>
>None of which applies to the site(s) in question.  Let me repeat that
>so that you clearly understand: the site(s) in question are not playing
>fast and loose with DNS, they have NEVER had relaying enabled, much
>less abused, and they have NEVER abused SMTP delivery.  (I know this
>because I have been personally responsible for the operation of these
>site(s) from their first day of existence.)

As Chuq and others have pointed out, plenty of sites are able to get mail 
through to AOL all the time. It's a select few that have problems.

When I speak of abusing SMTP delivery, I'm referring to mailing list 
systems which generate too many RCPT TOs for AOL's taste, making it look 
like a UBE attack. I was purposely vague, because I'm not up on all the 
technical terms in this regard.

>No, the problem was AOL's clueless and inappropriate methods.  I don't
>see why anyone would find this surprising, given their long history
>of incompetence.

It's your bias that has a long history. People who have problems are the 
exception, not the rule. Millions of AOL members get millions of list 
messages without trouble. Unless you can prove that AOL is somehow out to 
get you, I suggest you redirect your energy to finding the problem and 
solving it, rather than ranting about how AOL is able to manage a system 
supporting more users than any other, and can do so with any level of 
incompetence.

There's plenty of clueless management at AOL, but the technical people 
know their stuff up and down. Attempts to impugn their technical ability 
is an insult to the massive amount of work they have to do to force a 
legacy system to support the largest single membership on Earth.


-- 
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
adamkb@aol.com |  confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 12:18:15 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA18056; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA18043 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:45:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA07340
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:46:38 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990302135743.03d31980@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 13:57:43 -0500
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
In-Reply-To: <199903021216.GAA21169@bonkers.taronga.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 06:16 AM 3/2/99 -0600, Stephanie da Silva wrote:
>Rich Kulawiec: 
>
>> > Define "bulk"
>> 
>> Hmmm, I would have thought it self-evident, but let's try "not sent
>> individually by one human being to another".
>> 
>> > So, are Stephanie's emails requesting information to the appx 1/3 of
>> > list-owners who are on her list unsolicited (i.e. they didn't ask to
>> > be added to PAML), spam?
>> 
>> Yes.
>
>I fail your definition, as I send out all my mail individually by
>hand.

Do you compose it for the individual recipient by hand?

This test is clearly failed by topica.  I feel like I'm done with this
discussion, personally.  I am now going to do my normal spam-complaint
routine when I get spammed.  I encourage folks who get spam (by whatever
definition they feel comfortable with) to do likewise.
--
We will fight for bovine freedom, And hold our large heads high.
We will run free, with the buffalo or die! Cows with Guns. - Dana Lyons,
Cows With Guns
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 14:17:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA19688; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.communitech.net (venus.communitech.net [199.79.146.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA19681 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:45:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thorby ([24.94.80.128]) by venus.communitech.net ; Tue, 02 Mar 1999 15:43:22 -600
Message-Id: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
X-Sender: vawjr@mail.rudbek.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:46:36 -1000
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
In-Reply-To: <19990302105051.A9383@gsp.org>
References: <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
 <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org>
 <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At Tuesday 3/2/99 10:50, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
[deleted]
>On all of the mailing lists that I run, that right is explicitly retained
>(although I don't think that's necessary for it to exist), while the
>rights to the compilation are explicitly granted to me -- *not* because
>I intend to make a profit from the content, but because I wish to prevent
>anyone else from doing so and in doing so, violating the copyrights of
>both the participants and myself.

Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a profit' on
this, that you have some objection to someone else making a profit?  Why?
I understand that this question is off topic for the list, but there seems
to be a lot of animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making money.

Victor A. Wagner, Jr. 
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
              "There oughta be a law"

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 14:46:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA20191; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA20184 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA13150
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:21:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302172115.A13060@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:21:15 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net> <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org> <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net> <19990302105051.A9383@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>; from Victor A. Wagner, Jr. on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 11:46:36AM -1000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 11:46:36AM -1000, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a profit' on
> this, that you have some objection to someone else making a profit?

Yes, I do.

> Why?

Because the mailing lists are partially my work (the labor of setting
them up, maintaining them, etc.) and partially the work of the subscribers
(all of the contributed material except for the articles that I write).
No individual subscriber has the authority to speak for the entire list;
and I, as the owner, lack the authority to speak for the individual
subscribers.  There is thus nobody in a position to grant permission
for use of the materials beyond which that for which they were
originally intended.  (And I think it is reasonable to assert
that the original intended use is transmission to fellow subscribers.)

In other words, had I included a statement along the lines of "...by joining
this list, you agree that any submissions you make may be later packaged
up with other submissions and used as a content in a profit-making
enterprise..." or something like that, then I could reasonably assert
that subscribers made an informed decision to contribute their materials
to a profit-making enterprise.

But I didn't include any such statement: in fact, I included one that
explicitly notes retention of the copyright on individual messages by
their authors and copyright on the compilation by me.  I did that because
I felt it was the best way to assure subscribers that I wouldn't take
that which they freely gave and make a profit on it; and I felt it was
the best way to assure myself that unscrupulous profiteers would not be
able to make money off something to which they had contributed *nothing*.

> I understand that this question is off topic for the list, but there seems
> to be a lot of animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making money.

I don't have a problem with anyone making money.  I have a major problem
when (a) they decide not to honor my intentions to keep a particular
project non-profit and/or (b) they decide to make a profit off my
work without my consent.  I fully recognize that I may be passing up
an opportunity: however, that's *my* decision, and I expect to have that
decision honored by all concerned parties, regardless of what their
particular opinions on the matter may be.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 16:19:44 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA00557; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA00550 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA13957
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:39:11 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA08837; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:39:08 -0800
Message-Id: <199903022339.AA08837@waltz.rahul.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com> 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 99 15:39:08 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Victor wrote:
> 
> Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a
> profit'on this, that you have some objection to someone else making
> a profit?  Why?  I understand that this question is off topic for
> the list, but there seems to be a lot of animosity towards the
> thought of anyone ELSE making money.

It's not an objection to profit or making money per se, it's an
objection to someone else using something I own to make money.

Private property rights apply equally to for-profit and non-profit
enterprises and exercising those rights (by legally restricting use of
the private property) does not mean that the for-profit agency is
showing animosity toward charity nor that the non-profit agency is
showing animosity toward making money.

I bet if NBC asked PBS if they could use all their shows for free and
broadcast them with interspersed commercials that PBS would say "no
way".  Is that "animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making
money?"

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 18:30:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA02269; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA02262 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29400
	; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:57:30 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v0410440bb30245577747@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <199903011636.KAA12114@mail.xnet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:50:36 -0800
To: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>, <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:36 AM -0600 3/1/99, Adam Bailey wrote:
> (Why do my messages always take two days to get through to the list?)

Murphy hates you. Either that, or the AOL e-mail problems are causing 
your mail to delay, and you don't realize it.

> There's plenty of clueless management at AOL,

Unlike the rest of the Internet, which is, of course, perfect.

(except for usa.net. Sigh... whimper...)

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 18:47:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA02473; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA02466 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14730;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:09:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302210915.A14664@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:09:15 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Randy Cassingham <arcie@thisistrue.com>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
References: <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>; from Randy Cassingham on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 10:39:26AM -0700
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 10:39:26AM -0700, Randy Cassingham wrote:
> Um... WHICH community?

The anti-spam community.  Not any particular faction of it, including CAUCE,
which is very much a latecomer to the fight.

> I consider THE leader in anti-spam efforts to be CAUCE -- the Coalition
> Against Unsolicited COMMERCIAL Email.  It does appear, then, that
> reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam.

CAUCE's acronym is flawed in the abstract sense because it depends
specifically on the content/intent of the message, and thus runs afoul
of First Amendment problems in the US, and similar legal problems in
other jurisdictions.  (Context-specific restrictions almost never pass
unscathed through Constitutional challenges.)

It's also flawed in the practical sense because it gives spammers the
quick out of simply claiming that the message is non-commercial in nature,
whether that is in fact the case or not.  (And I hope you will agree that
1,400,000 sermons from the First Church of Ni! constitute the same
problem as 1,400,000 ads for shrubberies.)

The correct definition of spam defines it as conduct, not speech,
thus avoiding all First Amendment entanglements and focusing on the
act itself -- which is, if you think about it, where the damage is done --
not on the content, which is completely irrelevant.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 18:58:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA02543; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:16:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.topica.com (dns.topica.com [209.79.54.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA02536 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:16:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alex (h143.n79.topica.com [209.79.54.143])
	by dns.topica.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA10477;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:20:12 -0800
From: "Alex Guerrero" <alex@get.topica.com>
To: "'Rich Kulawiec'" <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: RE: Beta site at Topica
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:15:01 -0800
Message-ID: <001a01be651b$a5b9eb60$8f364fd1@alex.topica.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <19990302092020.A8581@gsp.org>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


Rich,

No problem, I'll make sure there are no archiving activities on lists run
through, or content from the gsp.org domain on the Topica site.

BTW, we'd be more than happy to do this for anyone else as well.

Thanks for your comments.

Alex


> -----Original Message-----
> From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of Rich Kulawiec
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 6:20 AM
> To: Alex Guerrero
> Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
> Subject: Re: Beta site at Topica
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 07:29:21AM -0800, Alex Guerrero wrote:
> > from the web interface.  From your messages on 
> list-managers, I understand
> > you are opposed to third parties offering this service, [...]
> 
> Yes, I am.  If I wanted a web interface, I'm perfectly capable of
> constructing one and deploying it.  I might even do that at 
> some point.
> 
> But I don't -- at least not at the moment -- and I think it's 
> the height
> of arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of topica or anyone else
> (I don't mean to single y'all out) to presume that I do.  What you
> are calling a "service" I call a self-serving pain in the ass.
> 
> As far as I can tell, your entire business model is built on 
> the premise
> that *you* can profit from my mailing lists and their participants,
> as well as from other mailing lists and their participants.  
> I find this
> offensively greedy as well as in direct conflict with the spirit of
> open participation, and I do not wish to be associated with 
> it in any way.
> 
> So let me just make it clear: you are DIRECTED to cease and any all
> archiving activities involving lists run through gsp.org; any content
> currently on your site must be removed.  (In fact, all such 
> lists contain
> an explicit compilation copyright in my name, which is there for just
> such an occasion.)  You are further informed that all messages from
> me personally, regardless of what mailing list they are sent to, are
> copyrighted under the terms of the Berne convention and may not be
> reproduced on your site without my express permission.
> 
> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> rsk@gsp.org
> 


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 19:47:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA03409; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 19:19:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA03402 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 19:19:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15199
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:20:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302222020.A15097@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 22:20:20 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
References: <199903011636.KAA12114@mail.xnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903011636.KAA12114@mail.xnet.com>; from Adam Bailey on Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 10:36:34AM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 10:36:34AM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> Unless you can prove that AOL is somehow out to get you,  [...]

Why would I want to prove it?  I don't even believe it, and I have no idea
why you would think I would -- I've never said anything of the kind.

I have pointed out a particular incident -- which, by the way, was reported
by other independent observers at the same time.  It is clearly not the result
of anything on my end, since the same mechanism worked before, during, and
after the problem, and before and after with AOL.  This pretty much
eliminates everything but AOL from the diagnosis.

And yes, before you ask, I *did* test things to try as best as possible
to make sure it wasn't my end.  If I had the slightest hint that it
might be, I would have erred on the side of caution and assumed that I'd
simply overlooked something.  But such is not the case.

> There's plenty of clueless management at AOL, but the technical people 
> know their stuff up and down.

I see no evidence that this is the case.  I have seen lots of evidence,
over a period of years, which indicates the contrary.  (And y'know, I didn't
just wake up one morning and decide to dis AOL's technical competence.
I don't even know who works there.  Nor do I care, because I don't
think it really matters: it's the observed performance that I care about,
not the individual people.)

And unlike you, I am unimpressed by the sheer (and frequently exaggerated)
size of AOL.  I do not consider it an adequate excuse for poor
performance/service.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 20:30:45 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA03983; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA03976 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (lev@localhost)
	by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA12643;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:02:15 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:02:15 -0500 (EST)
From: P Kayak <lev@bloomington.in.us>
X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net
To: Randy Cassingham <arcie@thisistrue.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Defining spam(wasTopica)  (Language=chess /game)
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903022201160.6846-100000@kirkwood.hoosier.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Randy Cassingham wrote:

> Um... WHICH community?
> 
> I consider THE leader in anti-spam efforts to be CAUCE -- the Coalition
> Against Unsolicited COMMERCIAL Email.  It does appear, then, that
> reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam.

Quite so.  Question is, can we communicate, merely understanding one
another's different deffinition..

Some want a strict definition - in 'UBE' say.)  Others of us might just
see several of these words as having "family-relationship" only.
(Wittgenstein.)  Just like: some see corollaries, mebe, as being a sub-set
of axioms, but others do not.  If 'junk- mail' were used to interpret
spam, would that be illegal thinking?  Or to use spam part of the time to
mean the gooey stuff we see in a Usenet NG taken over and stinking?

I have become convinced I better say UBE, in any picky discussion.  I'm
willing to defend - or learn - what that means.   Spam..., uh that might
be like 'digit' to a mathematician (not a rigorous concept).

For lawyers exact, perfect agreement on what a word (or statute) means,
may be less important than who is for and who is against a given motion.
For IT people, what this or that filter does and does not do - may be at a
more urgent level of needed clarity.

So is there (a) motion in the current debate?

In a debate I could pretend to strictly equate monograph and book in one
session.  Using those words interchangably.  Then later disagree that
a monograph can last more than 500 pages.

Frankly I doubt CAUCE is accepted by all professionals as 'THE' authority.
(My word.)  Have argued here for understanding and diversity.

'Unsolicited' I have seen, can mean several things in e-mail.  Even bulk
(not always identical to multi-copy).

When you said "which community?", I liked that.  Different language
communities have different definitions  /for same word.

cheers



> 
>  + Randy Cassingham, author of "This is True" * arcie@thisistrue.com +
>  | http://www.thisistrue.com * autoresponder TrueInfo@thisistrue.com |
>  + FIGHT SPAM!! Send blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for details +
> 

- - -
             				- Paul
To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.
:					     - Oliver Wendell Holmes : 
:*nine_stories*,salinger=****=djembes................................:




From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 20:46:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA04084; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:10:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA04074 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA20865;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:08:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA09925;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:09:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA14739;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:09:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:09:22 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903022258590.14654-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:

> Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a
> profit' on this, that you have some objection to someone else
> making a profit?  Why? I understand that this question is off
> topic for the list, but there seems to be a lot of animosity
> towards the thought of anyone ELSE making money.

IMHO, this is definitely on topic for a list managers mailing list.

I would certainly object to someone else making profit from a list
which I host, free of charge, as a community service.  Anyone who
wants to keep their mailing list private and free from commercial
influences has my support.  Why should an outsider benefit financially
from the efforts of a a list admin and his/her subscribers?  Sorry.  
You get no sympathy from me on this whatsoever.  Wanna make a buck on
mailing lists?  Open your own lists.  Leave my list and my subscribers
the alone.  We can get along just fine without any money changing
hands.


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 21:00:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA04347; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net (dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net [206.196.128.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id UAA04340 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 4900 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 1999 04:31:33 -0000
Delivered-To: fixup-list-managers@GreatCircle.COM@fixme
Received: (qmail 4836 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 1999 04:31:31 -0000
Received: from kdsl86.dnvr.uswest.net (HELO home.thisistrue.dnvr.uswest.net) (209.181.70.86)
  by dnvrpop2.dnvr.uswest.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 1999 04:31:31 -0000
Message-Id: <4.1.19990302212155.009cf1e0@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
X-Sender: thisistrue@pop.dnvr.uswest.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:30:22 -0700
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Randy Cassingham <arcie@thisistrue.com>
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
In-Reply-To: <19990302210915.A14664@gsp.org>
References: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
 <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
 <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org>
 <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net>
 <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org>
 <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 09:09 PM 3/2/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec said:

>> Um... WHICH community?
>
>The anti-spam community.

Which is composed of large groups of unrelated people with differing
ideas.  So we're back to the original statement, I think by Michelle
Dick: "reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam".

>> I consider THE leader in anti-spam efforts to be CAUCE -- the Coalition
>> Against Unsolicited COMMERCIAL Email.
>
>CAUCE's acronym is flawed in the abstract sense

Perhaps, but it's not an UNREASONABLE definition.  They're making very
good headway in choking off spam.  You sound like a reasonable person
too; you and I and CAUSE all have reasonable positions.  Yet we still
disagree.  I'm NOT saying you're wrong; I'm saying that Michelle is
right: reasonable people DO disagree.  To argue against that point is
to lose sight of the goal: eradication of spam.

I *do* agree that "spamming" to send out a plea for people to look
for a missing little girl is not commercial, but it is still the
wrong thing to do.  Should it be *outlawed*?  I dunno.  Should ads
for "wet hot teens" be forced on me?  No; and THAT *should* be
outlawed, just as similar faxes are outlawed.  Focussing on the
commercial aspect makes it easier to pass legislation, which I
unfortunately think is necessary.  Anyway, it's not worth arguing
whether or not reasonable people disagree on the definition, but
that IS obviously the case here!

(BTW: your belief that individual postings to mailing lists are
copyrighted is correct; the Berne Convention makes the copyright
protections valid across many continents.  A specific copyright
NOTICE in the message(s) is NOT required.  It wasn't worth a
separate post to say that, but you are indeed right about it.)

 + Randy Cassingham, author of "This is True" * arcie@thisistrue.com +
 | http://www.thisistrue.com * autoresponder TrueInfo@thisistrue.com |
 + FIGHT SPAM!! Send blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for details +


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 21:31:35 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA04829; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:01:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.communitech.net (venus.communitech.net [199.79.146.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA04818 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:01:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thorby ([24.94.80.128]) by venus.communitech.net ; Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:58:16 -600
Message-Id: <4.1.19990302183858.00fac800@mail.rudbek.com>
X-Sender: vawjr@mail.rudbek.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 19:01:20 -1000
To: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903022258590.14654-100000@katie.vnet.net>
References: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

comments interspersed.
At Tuesday 3/2/99 23:09, murr rhame wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a
>> profit' on this, that you have some objection to someone else
>> making a profit?  Why? I understand that this question is off
>> topic for the list, but there seems to be a lot of animosity
>> towards the thought of anyone ELSE making money.
>
>IMHO, this is definitely on topic for a list managers mailing list.
>
>I would certainly object to someone else making profit from a list
>which I host, free of charge, as a community service.

[vawjr]   It's clear from your "certainly" that you feel strongly about
this (as apparently do many).  It is why I asked my original question: "Why?"

>Anyone who
>wants to keep their mailing list private and free from commercial
>influences has my support.  

[vawjr] I support being free from unwanted influences also.  I note that
you specifically denote "commercial".  Is there some reason that their
influences are worse than any others?

>Why should an outsider benefit financially
>from the efforts of a a list admin and his/her subscribers?

[vawjr] Most likely they will be offering services in addition to those
that the list admin and subscribers provide.  And, apparently, they can
find people willing to pay for those services.

> Sorry.  
>You get no sympathy from me on this whatsoever.  

[vawjr] I wasn't looking for sympathy, I was asking a question.

>Wanna make a buck on
>mailing lists?

[vawjr] I don't see the relevance to my question, but no, I hadn't
considered making a buck on mailing lists.

>Open your own lists.  Leave my list and my subscribers
>the alone.  

[vawjr] I have not in the past, have not now, and have no plans to interact
with your subscribers in any way (at least not because they are your
subscribers, a matter of indifference to me when I choose to interact with
someone).

>We can get along just fine without any money changing
>hands.
>
>
>- murr -


Victor A. Wagner, Jr. 
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
              "There oughta be a law"

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  2 23:44:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA06495; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA06479 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom6.netcom.com [192.100.81.114])
	by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id XAA05505;
	Tue, 2 Mar 1999 23:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990302215208.00966cf0@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 21:52:08 -0800
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
From: SRE <eckert@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <19990301083948.A24566@gsp.org>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990225202348.03f07320@127.0.0.1>
 <v03110714b2fb131d672c@[207.252.88.49]>
 <3.0.5.32.19990225202348.03f07320@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 08:39 AM 3/1/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>Absolutely correct.  This is well down the slippery slope to the completely
>unethical and indefensible tactics that spammers use.

I got one today... from topica. Is this a coincidence? Probably?
Full text is below. It appears to be bulk mail, not using my name
(which is available if you read the list charter). It was sent to
a generic address and not my personal address. It states that it
was sent unsolicited. It tells me I'm already included but I have
the option of opting out.

At least now we're talking about a specific example.

>On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 11:46:36AM -1000, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>> Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a profit' on
>> this, that you have some objection to someone else making a profit?
At 05:21 PM 3/2/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>Yes, I do.
>Because the mailing lists are partially my work (the labor of setting
>them up, maintaining them, etc.) and partially the work of the subscribers
>(all of the contributed material except for the articles that I write).

Exactly. Well said. Every work currently produced in the US is
copyrighted even if it is not marked that way... and it's just
not right to make a profit off work that was not intended for
sale by the person now making a profit. It doesn't matter if
the creator of the work intended to profit.

SRE





To: lomap-day-hiking-request@lists.sierraclub.org
From: Topica Support <natasha@GET.TOPICA.COM>
Subject: Web based access for your subscribers
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:42:59 -0800

Dear owner of lomap-day-hiking@lists.sierraclub.org,

One of our users has subscribed to your list from the Topica Directory
of Email Lists.  We would like to offer this subscriber, as well as
future subscribers to your list, the ability to read your lists's
messages through our web site.

If you would like to allow your subscribers (and only your subscribers
if you wish) to read your list through our web site, please visit the
following URL:

http://www.topica.com/listowner/?L=CDC9CEC6C7

We've been working hard to develop a valuable services for the email
list community.  At the above URL, you will also be able to verify your
list information and, if you'd like, provide additional information
about it.  We would greatly appreciate it if you could take a few
minutes to do so.

If you prefer that we did not include your list in our directory, you
can instruct us to do so at the above URL as well.  We apologize for
sending you this unsolicited message.  If you have any questions or
comments, please contact us at support@get.topica.com.

Thank you!

Natasha
Topica Customer Support

To learn more about Topica Inc. please go to http://www.topica.com



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 00:42:43 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA07249; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:07:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from venus.communitech.net (venus.communitech.net [199.79.146.241]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id AAA07242 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thorby ([24.94.80.128]) by venus.communitech.net ; Wed, 03 Mar 1999 02:03:54 -600
Message-Id: <4.1.19990302214723.0103a6e0@mail.rudbek.com>
X-Sender: vawjr@mail.rudbek.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:07:13 -1000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <199903022339.AA08837@waltz.rahul.net>
References: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

comments interspersed
At Tuesday 3/2/99 15:39, Michelle Dick wrote:
>
>It's not an objection to profit or making money per se, it's an
>objection to someone else using something I own to make money.

That you own this something is not at question.  The question really is, I
guess, if you can see no way to make money on it, and someone else does
(probably by adding some things of their own) what difference would it make
to you if they did make money on it? You are not diminished by their
actions unless perhaps an apparent association takes place between you and
something you wish not to be associated.

>Private property rights apply equally to for-profit and non-profit
>enterprises and exercising those rights (by legally restricting use of
>the private property) does not mean that the for-profit agency is
>showing animosity toward charity nor that the non-profit agency is
>showing animosity toward making money.

No question here; I believe in private property.  I agree that you have the
"right" to decide, and I will even help you enforce that decision.  It's
the reason for the decision which puzzles me.

>I bet if NBC asked PBS if they could use all their shows for free and
>broadcast them with interspersed commercials that PBS would say "no
>way".  Is that "animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making
>money?"

In the case of PBS possibly :-)  Seriously though, I don't think this is a
good example.  PBS may not make a 'profit', but the "properties" they own
certainly DO have value to them.  They "rent" them to the local stations
for the privilege of showing them.

>
>--
>Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
>          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List


Victor A. Wagner, Jr. 
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
              "There oughta be a law"

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 02:57:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA10329; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 02:33:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from public.antipope.org (public.antipope.org [194.117.128.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA10322 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 02:33:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jm@localhost)
	by public.antipope.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA02566
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:33:56 GMT
Message-ID: <19990303103356.D2201@antipope.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:33:56 +0000
From: Jon Parry-McCulloch <jm@antipope.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
References: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net> <19990302210915.A14664@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302212155.009cf1e0@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302212155.009cf1e0@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>; from Randy Cassingham on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:30:22PM -0700
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

My Quivering Choad tells me that Randy Cassingham had this to say:
 
> (BTW: your belief that individual postings to mailing lists are
> copyrighted is correct; the Berne Convention makes the copyright
> protections valid across many continents.  A specific copyright
> NOTICE in the message(s) is NOT required.  It wasn't worth a
> separate post to say that, but you are indeed right about it.)

But I have emails from you - and lots of them - in which you claim that
copyright isn't valid unless it's "registered". So, which is it?

Oh yes, and you still haven't confirmed whether or not you have deleted
the material of mine that you used without my permission from your
servers and archives as I asked you to. 

Have you done this yet, or are you going to do it in the future?

--
Jon

******************************************************************************
	
	If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of 
	others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned 
	to slave labor.
	
	-- Ayn Rand

******************************************************************************

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 04:29:27 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA13394; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 04:06:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA13387 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 04:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA14779;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:03:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA19605;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:03:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA18265;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:03:08 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:03:07 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302183858.00fac800@mail.rudbek.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903030649180.18179-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:

> [vawjr] It's clear from your "certainly" that you feel strongly
> about this (as apparently do many).  It is why I asked my original
> question: "Why?"

I and several others stated our reasons.  We don't want others to
profit from our efforts and our subscribers' efforts.  Those who
volunteer to produce and maintain the content, are entitled to decide
how their content will be used.

> [vawjr] I support being free from unwanted influences also.  I
> note that you specifically denote "commercial".  Is there some
> reason that their influences are worse than any others?

There are many other potential negative outside influences which could
have a negative impact on a mailing list.  In the interest of clarity,
I choose to address only the topic at hand.  Do you really want to
tackle every potential unwanted influence?


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 06:12:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA14348; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA14341 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:25:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2008429 invoked by uid 3995); 3 Mar 1999 13:26:08 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14045.14447.946180.64849@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:26:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Dave Sill <de5-list-managers@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302214723.0103a6e0@mail.rudbek.com>
References: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
	<199903022339.AA08837@waltz.rahul.net>
	<4.1.19990302214723.0103a6e0@mail.rudbek.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Norwegian" XEmacs Lucid
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M<gHyq0KvGt<$qi6=B7;$3~1p?Jc7-g?1vPVAc%YX$E6]%1jvk:,"f*jA|?~Cxb?WJ5gt}L?qsMAjROM~rHbK27yx=t,L/?IHb8@|cYg8"Y)~0IpU~J.^w,VW)u?M3q-AS{f`@RZ]Wll
X-Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> wrote:
>At Tuesday 3/2/99 15:39, Michelle Dick wrote:
>>
>>It's not an objection to profit or making money per se, it's an
>>objection to someone else using something I own to make money.
>
>That you own this something is not at question.

Sure it is. It's not at all clear that list owners own the content
posted to their lists. They own the "compilation", but not the actual
content.

Selling advertisements on a list archive is, from the point of view of 
a poster, "someone else using something I own to make money"--unless
the list owner makes it clear up front that submissions become her
property.

-Dave

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 06:27:23 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA14660; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA14653 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22620;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:56:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990303085639.A22598@gsp.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:56:39 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com> <199903022339.AA08837@waltz.rahul.net> <4.1.19990302214723.0103a6e0@mail.rudbek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302214723.0103a6e0@mail.rudbek.com>; from Victor A. Wagner, Jr. on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 10:07:13PM -1000
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 10:07:13PM -1000, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> [...] The question really is, I
> guess, if you can see no way to make money on it, and someone else does
> (probably by adding some things of their own) what difference would it make
> to you if they did make money on it? You are not diminished by their
> actions unless perhaps an apparent association takes place between you and
> something you wish not to be associated.

But I am.  My express wish to preserve an enterprise as a non-profit
entity is being ignored.  I consider this to constitute tangible harm,
and have no reservations about seeking tangible compensation for it,
should that become necessary.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 08:56:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA17164; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:35:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from firefly.cisco.com (firefly.cisco.com [171.69.63.22]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA17151 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:35:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kenny-pc.cisco.com (dhcp-m-63-247.cisco.com [171.71.63.247]) by firefly.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with SMTP id IAA09486; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:35:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199903031635.IAA09486@firefly.cisco.com>
X-Sender: kenny@firefly.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 07:04:09 -0800
To: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Kenny Paul <kenny@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302113741.01075ae0@mail.rudbek.com>
References: <19990302105051.A9383@gsp.org>
 <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
 <4.2.0.25.19990301104429.00b10320@mail.imc.org>
 <199903020727.AA24617@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 11:46 AM 3/2/99 -1000, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
>Am I to understand that even though you don't intend to "make a profit' on
>this, that you have some objection to someone else making a profit?  Why?
>I understand that this question is off topic for the list, but there seems
>to be a lot of animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making money.

I realize that this was directed at rsk@gsp.org, but I just had to jump in
here,
since the question seems so naive to me.

Since the effort that goes into maintaining the mailing lists I run is
volunteered
and the fact that my company was gracious enough to let me run a couple of
public mailing lists through the company's servers at the company's expense, 
you are damn right that I object to anyone making money off of my mailing
lists.

Regards,	Kenny Paul
"live from SJC"


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 11:55:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19426; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kirkwood.hoosier.net (kirkwood.hoosier.net [206.106.64.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19418 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (lev@localhost)
	by kirkwood.hoosier.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA15364;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:41:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:41:07 -0500 (EST)
From: P Kayak <lev@bloomington.in.us>
X-Sender: lev@kirkwood.hoosier.net
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
cc: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com>
Subject: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business    -+ fishbowl existence
In-Reply-To: <19990303085639.A22598@gsp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903031419500.6024-100000@kirkwood.hoosier.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Grudgingly have to admit a point here.  
Unless a list-owner is backed by virtually all his subscribers,
his list can get dragged into for-profit policy questions.  It is too bad
if individuals interested in Tibetan music cannot close themselves to
advertizements.  To prevent their discussions getting infilterated; to not
have to face the the problem of getting quoted somewhere.  Sheesh.


On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02,  10:07:13PM, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
		<snip>
> > what difference would it make
> > to you if they did make money on it? You are not diminished by their
> > actions unless perhaps an apparent association takes place between you and
> > something you wish not to be associated.
> 
> But I am.  My express wish to preserve an enterprise as a non-profit
> entity is being ignored.  I consider this to constitute tangible harm,
> and have no reservations about seeking tangible compensation for it,
> should that become necessary.

	Whether I agree with this above statement completely, the first
	sentence is a telling one.  The right to have a non-profit
	activity (peaceful picnics eg) without commercial interests coming
	along... easily gets overrun.  

	I'd hope the wall-street people who go to church don't want 
	blinking quotes displayed by the platform ... what do they call
	that place?... the alter.


> ---Rsk
> Rich Kulawiec
> rsk@gsp.org
> 

- - -
             				- Paul
To have doubted one's first principles is the mark of a civilized man.
:					     - Oliver Wendell Holmes : 
:*nine_stories*,salinger=****=djembes................................:



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 12:10:57 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA19658; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dns.topica.com (dns.topica.com [209.79.54.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA19645 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tina.topica.com (h165.n79.topica.com [209.79.54.165])
	by dns.topica.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA27327;
	Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:04:56 -0800
Reply-To: <tina@get.topica.com>
From: "Tina Lin" <tina@get.topica.com>
To: "'SRE'" <eckert@climber.org>, "'Rich Kulawiec'" <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: RE: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:04:59 -0800
Message-ID: <001101be65b1$1f5910a0$a5364fd1@tina.topica.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990302215208.00966cf0@pop.climber.org>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> From: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> [mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM]On Behalf Of SRE
>
> I got one today... from topica. Is this a coincidence? Probably?
> Full text is below. It appears to be bulk mail, not using my name
> (which is available if you read the list charter). It was sent to
> a generic address and not my personal address. It states that it
> was sent unsolicited. It tells me I'm already included but I have
> the option of opting out.
>
> At least now we're talking about a specific example.

Hi,

I'm from Topica, and I thought it was important for me to respond to this
message on list so I can clarify a few points directly.

Yes, SRE, it's just a coincidence that you got this email...but it's an
indication that people are finding out about your list through Topica.

The email that you received is a request to allow your subscribers to be
able to read your list's messages through the Topica web site, as an
additional option.  Please do note that this is *an opt-in request* i.e. we
will NOT archive your list and subscribers will NOT  be able to read your
list messages on the Topica site without your explicit permission.

This email is sent to the "owner of" the list to verify that you are indeed
the owner of the list.  We're verifying the owner as added security before
making any changes to a list.  Based on feedback we had gotten, we thought
it was preferable to send to the owner address, rather than personal
addresses.  I'd certainly welcome any additional feedback on that.

You are correct that this means that your list is currently in the Topica
directory.  To be clear, we licensed all of the data in our directory from 3
sources of publicly available mailing lists: our partners, Liszt, Tile.Net
and PAML.  It was (and continues to be) our understanding that all of this
information was meant to be public.  If that is not the case, I can assure
you that we will work diligently to address it.  Based on feedback we've
gotten in the past week, we've made changes to make it clearer and easier
how to remove your list from the Topica directory, if that is what you'd
like us to do.  Please do let us know if you have additional suggestions.

Just to give you some perspective, from the very beginning, it was our
intention and desire to build a service to address the needs of the existing
list owner community.  We solicited input for the past year and formed a
list owner advisory board.  Working with a group of list owners, we made
decisions based on what we thought would be best.  There are a number of
very sensitive issues, and it is apparent that we still need to refine our
approach on some of these.  I'd ask for your help in highlighting these
issues (as you've already started to do here) so we can make our service
valuable for you and the overall list owner community.

If any of you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me directly.

Thanks,

Tina Lin
Co-founder, Topica


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 12:27:13 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA19886; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA19877 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:20:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA20160
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:20:38 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA28096; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 12:20:31 -0800
Message-Id: <199903032020.AA28096@waltz.rahul.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business 
In-Reply-To: <14045.14447.946180.64849@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> 
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 99 12:20:31 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Dave wrote:
> 
> Sure it is. It's not at all clear that list owners own the content
> posted to their lists. They own the "compilation", but not the actual
> content.

Owning the compilation means that you control the use of the
collection.  You cannot go out and sell an individual posting
seperate from the rest of the others, but you can use the group of
them, and say, republish them on the web, or profit from the
collection as a whole.

If the poster's copyright on their message prohibited the compilation
copyright holder from making money, it would also prohibit the
compilation copyright holder from republishing on the web, or
authorizing an external party (say, a web archiver) to republish
members' postings on their behalf.  If we admit that the list owner
can authorize republishing list-member's copyrighted postings as a
collection, then we've also admitted that the list-owner can also
republish them as the collection, with or without profit.  

That is the purpose of the compilation copyright -- it applies to
collections where either (a) the individual items are not under
copyright protection or (b) the individual items are copyright some
other entitity.  In both cases, the compilation copyright holder can
control what is done with the whole collection.  And in both cases,
the compilation copyright holder cannot control what someone might do
with individual items.  In (a) anyone can make use of them, in (b)
anyone can use them with only permission of the item copyright holder
irrespective of the wishes of the compilation copyright holder.

> Selling advertisements on a list archive is, from the point of view of 
> a poster, "someone else using something I own to make money"--unless
> the list owner makes it clear up front that submissions become her
> property.

In my case, charter and digest notations spell out that by posting,
the poster grants permission for their post to be part of the
compilations I hold copyright to and which I control the use
of. [Plural because I have two overlapping collections that I name and
use].  One does not have to give up copyright to grant limited use to
another.  My posters retain their copyright while granting me the
right to use it in the collection as I deem fit.  

And, because of the particulars of my list, the meat of my list is
recipes, which, actually, aren't enforceably subject to copyright
protection per se (they could, theoretically be patented, and literary
description of the dish or artistic expression in describing the
directions could be copyrighted -- by courts have taken a dim view of
honoring copyright for any single food recipe).  My compilation
copyright for the recipe collection portion falls more under (a)
above, than (b).

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 13:40:54 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA20543; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:26:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id NAA20536 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA06857
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:26:52 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA02104; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:26:51 -0800
Message-Id: <199903032126.AA02104@waltz.rahul.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Being a good list owner
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9903031419500.6024-100000@kirkwood.hoosier.net> 
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 99 13:26:50 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Paul wrote:
> Unless a list-owner is backed by virtually all his subscribers,
> his list can get dragged into for-profit policy questions.  It is too bad
> if individuals interested in Tibetan music cannot close themselves to
> advertizements.  To prevent their discussions getting infilterated; to not
> have to face the the problem of getting quoted somewhere.  Sheesh.

Well a list owner probably can't prevent quotation (fair use), but it
can be minimized by appropriate list policies (i.e. not allowing any
republication of the posting collection).

But aside from copyright and other legal issues, backing by the
subscribers is important.  Being open and honest and clear about how,
where, when,if at all, the posting collection will be used can make
the list a better one.  And minimize disgruntled list subscribers who
assumed something incorrect.

In my case, I asked my list subscribers for input on the forms of
advertising and affiliate programs that should be assoicated with the
web archives for the list.  A bookstore was set up and though I was
going to go with Barnes and Noble, the subscribers unanimously wanted
Amazon.com, so that's whom we have.  They were informed when
advertising banners went into effect.  And the note in the charter sent to
new members that asked for donations was changed to say that the list
is financially supported through web advertising on the archive pages
and through affiliate programs.  (In addition to statements concerning
copyright ownership and usage).  And a special passworded member-only
web area was set up with no advertising and special features just for
list members. 

None of this is legally necessary, but I feel it is ethically
necessary and meets my vision of how a good list should be run.

p.s. one problem with authorizing publication rights to third parties
is that I give up the ability to let my subscribers know how their
words and contributions will be presented.

p.p.s.  one neat thing that happened was that a new subscriber raised
political objections to amazon.com.  I normally don't allow meta
discussion on the list, but so as not to appear biased, I let it pass.
In response, the list members replied privately (some cc-ing me) to
the poster explaining how amazon.com was chosen and why it was added
(to remove the need for donations).  There was no public discussion as
a result, the poster is still around and posting on topic now, and I
am blessed that the list subscribers support me so.  I also have
renewed interest in the care and feeding of the list, which had begun
to wane after 6 years of running it.

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 20:13:09 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA26523; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id UAA26500 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA08169 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07447
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:15:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990302061503.A7429@gsp.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:15:03 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
References: <199903011550.QAA01358@quill.thinkcoach.com> <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903012133090.23453-100000@katie.vnet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903012133090.23453-100000@katie.vnet.net>; from murr rhame on Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 09:37:33PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 09:37:33PM -0500, murr rhame wrote:
> I spoke too soon.  One of my list admins reported a mass bounce from
> AOL today (01MAR99).  Error was 550 user unknown.

I also got a bounce today -- an AOL user was attempting to subscribe
to a mailing list that I run, and majordomo's attempt to respond yielded
a "user unknown" as well.  Nevermind that the address in question was
valid as recently as yesterday, when I personally responded to an enquiry
from the same user.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier: AOL is clueless and incompetent.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar  3 20:25:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA26528; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id UAA26513 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA10332 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 04:22:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [205.243.156.212] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id GAA15039 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:23:31 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199903021223.GAA15039@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: List problems on AOL?
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:23:37 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
cc: <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On 3/1/99 8:37 PM, murr rhame <murr@vnet.net> wrote...

>On Mon, 1 Mar 1999, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> > Same here.  Other than an expected rate of filled mail boxes and
>> > closed accounts, I don't recall ever seeing a problem with AOL.  
>> 
>> This particular problem with AOL is likely to go unnoticed for a
>> long time, since AOL doesn't send a bounce or give any other
>> indication of a problem when messages are deleted by AOL's spam
>> filters.
>
>I spoke too soon.  One of my list admins reported a mass bounce from
>AOL today (01MAR99).  Error was 550 user unknown.

This happens from time to time, dunno why. But that's not related to the 
general complaint being made.


-- 
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
adamkb@aol.com |  confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/



From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 05:52:35 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA06614; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:47:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA06607 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 05:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA04021;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:48:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990304084817.A3713@gsp.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 08:48:17 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Topica-Dot-Com Open For Business
References: <14045.14447.946180.64849@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov> <199903032020.AA28096@waltz.rahul.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903032020.AA28096@waltz.rahul.net>; from Michelle Dick on Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 12:20:31PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 12:20:31PM -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> Owning the compilation means that you control the use of the
> collection.  You cannot go out and sell an individual posting
> seperate from the rest of the others, but you can use the group of
> them, and say, republish them on the web, or profit from the
> collection as a whole.

I do not feel that I can do so: I don't believe that I am ethically
able to profit from that which my subscribers gave freely *unless*
I told them up front, as part of the terms and conditions of subscription,
that I might choose to do so in the future.

> If the poster's copyright on their message prohibited the compilation
> copyright holder from making money, it would also prohibit the
> compilation copyright holder from republishing on the web [...]

The lists which I manage contain a clause in their introduction which
says (roughly speaking) "...the archives of this list may be put up
on the web at some point when I get around to it".  I hope that this
enables potential/new subscribers to make an informed decision about
whether they'd like to submit items or not.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 07:37:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA07948; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA07939 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:35:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05596
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:36:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990304103615.A5485@gsp.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:36:15 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
References: <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990301085114.C24566@gsp.org> <199903012213.AA18762@waltz.rahul.net> <19990302050211.A6743@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302103132.009bca50@pop.dnvr.uswest.net> <19990302210915.A14664@gsp.org> <4.1.19990302212155.009cf1e0@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990302212155.009cf1e0@pop.dnvr.uswest.net>; from Randy Cassingham on Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:30:22PM -0700
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:30:22PM -0700, Randy Cassingham wrote:
> So we're back to the original statement, I think by Michelle
> Dick: "reasonable people disagree on the definition of spam".

It may be true that reasonable people may disagree on the definition of spam;
however, this doesn't mean that some of them are right and that some
of them are wrong.  The agreement or disagreement is inconsequential:
the objective reality is what matters.

> Perhaps, but it's not an UNREASONABLE definition.

Yes, it IS an unreasonable defintion.  It is unreasonable because it
focuses on the content of the spam, which immediately opens free speech
(First Amendment, in the USA) questions.  This is specifically why
the correct definition of spam defines it as conduct, *not* speech.
(Any valid definition of spam *must* be content-free; and conversely, any
definition which makes any comment on the content is fatally flawed.)

> I *do* agree that "spamming" to send out a plea for people to look
> for a missing little girl is not commercial, but it is still the
> wrong thing to do.

No need to quote "spamming"; if it meets the UBE criteria, it *is* spam.
The purpose doesn't matter, the sender doesn't matter, the message doesn't
matter, nothing matters but whether or not it meets the criteria.

> Focussing on the commercial aspect makes it easier to pass legislation,
> which I unfortunately think is necessary.  

I remain unconvinced that legislation is an effective tool to fight spam,
but I have decided to withhold my objections and take a wait-and-see
attitude about it.

However, and this is a big HOWEVER -- while specifying commercial content
may make it easier to *pass* legislation (and that is by no means established
to my satisfaction) I don't have the slightest doubt that it makes it
much harder to successfully *use* that legislation, once passed, because
the content-specific criteria allow First Amendment-based challenges.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 07:53:15 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA08106; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:43:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA08098 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 07:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (pem03-01.swva.net [208.140.224.33])
	by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA11083
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:42:47 -0500
Message-Id: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:42:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Let in ask, luddite that I am, about another relative-newness that seems 
to be a loser and I sure hope dies a worthy death [although since it is 
onelist [among others] perpetrating it, as with HTML I suspect 
rationality and tradition are doomed]:  

Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject 
line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time, but as far 
as I know, virtually every list admin has had the good sense *not* to 
enable this.  This morning, I got treated to the following:

[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] DC Block Splitters]]

    (which brings up a more subtle problem of this style of list setup:
    if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
    in violation of rfc850: 

        If  the  article  is  submitted  in response  to another article
        (e.g., is a  "followup")  the default subject should  begin 
        with the  four  characters "Re: " and the References line is
        required.  (The user might wish to edit the subject of the 
        followup,  but  the default should begin with  "Re: ".) 

    Alas, we didn't have the foresight to make a similar rule for
    email... 

So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to 
onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?  Would any of you 
actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or another listserv]?  
Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo 
as being a bad idea?

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--          

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 11:57:20 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11049; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA11041 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id NAA14167 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:42:23 -0600 (CST)
Received: from den-co65-44.ix.netcom.com(206.214.76.44) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma013924; Thu Mar  4 13:41:25 1999
From: "Tom Rouse" <trouse@ix.netcom.com>
To: "List-Managers@GreatCircle. COM" <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: How many email list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb?
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:38:09 -0700
Message-ID: <003901be6676$88ea8ec0$2c4cd6ce@partagas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Importance: Normal
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Just for laughs:
(author unknown)


Q: How many email list subscribers does it take to change a
      light bulb?

A: 1,343 -- 1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list
     that the light bulb has been changed;

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the
light bulb could have been changed differently;
 
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs;

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light
bulbs;
 
53 to flame the spell checkers;
 
41 to correct spelling/grammar flames;
 
6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb";

another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive;
 
156 to write to the list administrator about the light bulb
discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list;
 
109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please
take this email exchange to litebulb-l;
 
203 to demand that cross posting to grammar-l, spelling-l and
illuminati-l about changing light bulbs be stopped;
 
111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this mail list;
 
306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where
to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for
this technique and what brands are faulty;
 
27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs;
 
14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and the post the
corrected URL's;
 
3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to
this list which makes light bulbs relevant to this list;
 
33 to link all posts to date, then quote them including all headers
and footers and then add "Me too";
 
12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy;
 
19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three";
 
4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ;
 
44 to ask what is "FAQ";
 
4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago on
Usenet?"
 
143 to ask "what's Usenet?"
 

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 12:56:33 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11780; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:46:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA11773 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:46:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08440;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:47:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990304154717.A8032@gsp.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:47:17 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>; from Bernie Cosell on Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:42:23AM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:42:23AM -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to 
> onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?

No, you are completely correct.  As you've pointed out, it can not only lead
to fairly hideous "Subject" lines, but to messages which don't comply with the
relevant RFCs.  (Granted, part of the blame for that is the mishandling
done by various mail clients.)

I also don't see the point.  I figure that users fall into two categories:

	1) Those who don't get very much mail (whether from mailing lists
		or private individuals) and who therefore don't need to
		filter/sort it (e.g. procmail).

	2) Those who get a lot of mail and need to filter/sort it.

Those in (1) don't need this; those in (2) have learned not to rely on it.
(Consider what happens when such a message is forwarded: the "Subject"
line thus is *not* an unambiguous indicator of origination via a
mailing list.)

Further, this scheme falls apart the moment two mailing lists pick the
same acronym.   Is [FB] traffic about football or furballs?

>  Would any of you actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo
> [or another listserv]?  

Absolutely not.   I consider it a misguided attempt to solve a problem
that is better solved by sufficiently smart filtering tools.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 13:57:28 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA12754; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:48:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pike.sover.net (pike.sover.net [209.198.87.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA12728 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dowser (arc0a60.burl.sover.net [207.136.201.60])
	by pike.sover.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA29680
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on pike.sover.net)
	dowser from arc0a60.burl.sover.net [207.136.201.60] 207.136.201.60
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:47:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <005901be6689$ee8ca520$3cc988cf@dowser>
Reply-To: "Kenneth E. Bannister" <kenbannister@groundwater.com>
From: "Kenneth E. Bannister" <kenbannister@groundwater.com>
To: <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:56:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

My subscribers prefer a prefix in the subject line to identify the message. The whole list name is
not needed of course, only initials.  I received many requests from subscribers for this feature. If
they want it, why not?

It lets them know that the message is in fact from my list and is not just a personal message from
someone.

It also helps them tell which list the message is from, if they belong to several lists.

Unlike HTML which seems to triple the size of the message, I have yet to experience any real
downside from having a list identifier in the subject heading.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Kenneth E. Bannister

President -  BANNISTER RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Internet Publisher  -      GROUNDWATER-DIGEST tm
                                -      WATER SYSTEMS tm
                                -      WELL DRILLING tm
Charter Member   - DIGITAL DOWSERS

         1897 Middle Road,   Bridport, Vermont USA 05734
ken@groundwater.com  http://www.groundwater.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Date: Thursday, March 04, 1999 3:48 PM
Subject: Putting the listname on the Subject line


Let in ask, luddite that I am, about another relative-newness that seems
to be a loser and I sure hope dies a worthy death [although since it is
onelist [among others] perpetrating it, as with HTML I suspect
rationality and tradition are doomed]:

Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject
line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time, but as far
as I know, virtually every list admin has had the good sense *not* to
enable this.  This morning, I got treated to the following:

[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] DC Block Splitters]]

    (which brings up a more subtle problem of this style of list setup:
    if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
    in violation of rfc850:

        If  the  article  is  submitted  in response  to another article
        (e.g., is a  "followup")  the default subject should  begin
        with the  four  characters "Re: " and the References line is
        required.  (The user might wish to edit the subject of the
        followup,  but  the default should begin with  "Re: ".)

    Alas, we didn't have the foresight to make a similar rule for
    email...

So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to
onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?  Would any of you
actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or another listserv]?
Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo
as being a bad idea?

  /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--


From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 20:40:33 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA17746; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA17739 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA16265;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 23:27:50 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990304222148.03c2e530@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:21:48 -0500
To: "Tom Rouse" <trouse@ix.netcom.com>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: How many email list subscribers does it take to change a
  light bulb?
Cc: "List-Managers@GreatCircle. COM" <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
In-Reply-To: <003901be6676$88ea8ec0$2c4cd6ce@partagas>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 12:38 PM 3/4/99 -0700, Tom Rouse wrote:
>Q: How many email list subscribers does it take to change a
>      light bulb?

I have a majordomo filter for this joke.  
--
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar  4 20:54:55 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA17737; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:27:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA17730 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 20:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA16258;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 23:27:40 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990304221508.03c204f0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:15:08 -0500
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:42 AM 3/4/99 -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
>Let in ask, luddite that I am, about another relative-newness that seems 
>to be a loser and I sure hope dies a worthy death [although since it is 
>onelist [among others] perpetrating it, as with HTML I suspect 
>rationality and tradition are doomed]:  
>
>Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject 
>line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time, but as far 
>as I know, virtually every list admin has had the good sense *not* to 
>enable this.  

I disagree that not enabling this is good sense.

>This morning, I got treated to the following:
>
>[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] DC Block Splitters]]

Majordomo does not do this.  It searches for the pattern anywhere on the
subject line before inserting it.  Thus, if the first subject is:

Subject: fubar

Majordomo will mung it to 

Subject: [x] fubar

but when someone replies to that such that the subject is 

Subject: Re: [x] fubar

Majordomo will pass it through without changing it.

>    (which brings up a more subtle problem of this style of list setup:
>    if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
>    in violation of rfc850: 
>
>        If  the  article  is  submitted  in response  to another article
>        (e.g., is a  "followup")  the default subject should  begin 
>        with the  four  characters "Re: " and the References line is
>        required.  (The user might wish to edit the subject of the 
>        followup,  but  the default should begin with  "Re: ".) 
>
>    Alas, we didn't have the foresight to make a similar rule for
>    email... 
>
>So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to 
>onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?  Would any of you 
>actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or another listserv]?  
>Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo 
>as being a bad idea?

I would put subject munging back in if it were removed, or not downgrade to
a version of an MLM that did not support it.

If the above is a onelist list, with all of the insertions, then they are
clearly not up to best practice. Simply searching for the pattern before
inserting it fixes the problem you point out here.


--
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 04:41:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA25631; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA25623 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 04:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16472
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:59:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 06:59:31 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <19990304154717.A8032@gsp.org> <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903041846520.-333381@helium.jetpen.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903041846520.-333381@helium.jetpen.com>; from Rasmus Lerdorf on Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 06:53:40PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 06:53:40PM -0500, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> I personally like it because many people are not able to install procmail
> or other sorts of filters on their mail host.

I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to make allowances for people who
are simultaneously (1) voluntarily signing up to receive large amounts
of mail from one or more mailing lists and (2) failing to ensure that they
have sufficient software tools and expertise to cope with (1).

> And no, client-side filtering is not the answer.  I read my mail from
> about 8 different machines in many different locations.  I have a central
> IMAP mailstore and it is essential that I leave all my mail on my central
> server so I can get at it from anywhere.

Why not?  Use fetchmail to grab it, and procmail to filter it.  You can
still read your mail from anywhere, and procmail is clearly up to the task
of filtering/filing it appropriately.


I think client-side filtering is clearly the *only* answer, because
it is impossible for anyone but the end user to know what the disposition
of each message should be; and because that decision is best made based
on the static information in the headers of each message, usually
the "To" line.

And BTW, I haven't seen any proponent of this scheme (which I consider
a bug, not a feature) address these two points: (1) how do you resolve
overlap conflicts between the tags -- a problem which will only get
worse as more mailing lists are created and (2) if you are filtering
on the tag, how do you distinguish mail sent via the mailing list
from private mail which contains the same tag (say a private followup
to a message sent via a mailing list)?

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 08:12:48 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA27672; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 07:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA27664 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 07:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18423
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:54:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:54:02 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org> <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca>; from Christine Burke on Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 10:31:12AM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 10:31:12AM -0500, Christine Burke wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to make allowances for people who
> > are simultaneously (1) voluntarily signing up to receive large amounts
> > of mail from one or more mailing lists and (2) failing to ensure that they
> > have sufficient software tools and expertise to cope with (1).
> 
> Well, I do.  You can't expect the average Joe to be able to do some of
> this stuff.

The average Joe who is incapable of correctly handling the torrent of email
that results from the average Joe's actions (i.e. of subscribing to a bunch
of mailing lists) should not do the actions in the first place.

I think this is a pretty straightforward idea: to put it bluntly, if you
can't handle 100+ messages a day, don't sign up for mailing lists which
deliver 100+ messages a day.  Or, if you do, then it is up to *you*,
the end user, to ensure that you have appropriate tools to deal with it.

> > Why not?  Use fetchmail to grab it, and procmail to filter it.  You can
> > still read your mail from anywhere, and procmail is clearly up to the task
> > of filtering/filing it appropriately.
> 
> And all this runs on a Windows CE box?  Heck, it doesn't even run on Windows.

I don't know or care if it runs on Windows: when I have on my mailing 
list manager's hat, the end-user's choice of computing platforms is not
my concern.  If the end-user has chosen a computing platform which is
incapable of adequately performing the tasks which the end-user requires
of it, then it is the end-user's responsibility to address the problem.

> > And BTW, I haven't seen any proponent of this scheme (which I consider
> > a bug, not a feature) address these two points: (1) how do you resolve
> > overlap conflicts between the tags -- a problem which will only get
> > worse as more mailing lists are created and (2) if you are filtering
> > on the tag, how do you distinguish mail sent via the mailing list
> > from private mail which contains the same tag (say a private followup
> > to a message sent via a mailing list)?
> 
> I think 1) is irrelevant.  The chances of one person signing up for two
> lists with overlapping tags it pretty remote.

And you base this on what statistical study, exactly? 

Oh, and FYI: It has already happened.

> 2) you should note that I am not actually filtering on the tag.
> Just using it as a visual cue in a long list of messages.  

Then why don't you use a mail client that lets you set the visual
cue based on the "To:" line?

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 10:10:30 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA29588; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA29575 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA160907140; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:05:41 -0500
Message-Id: <199903051805.AA160907140@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Mar 1999 06:59:31 EST."
             <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 13:05:40 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to make allowances for people who
>are simultaneously (1) voluntarily signing up to receive large amounts
>of mail from one or more mailing lists and (2) failing to ensure that they
>have sufficient software tools and expertise to cope with (1).

So now you're against digests, too?

-Mitch



From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 10:39:52 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA29904; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA29896 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Venus.mcs.net (dattier@Venus.mcs.net [192.160.127.92]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id MAA19136 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:25:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Venus.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id MAA05809 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:25:07 -0600 (CST)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@Mcs.Net>
Message-Id: <199903051825.MAA05809@Venus.mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:25:06 -0600 (CST)
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org> from "Rich Kulawiec" at Mar 5, 99 06:59:31 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Rich Kulawiec wrote,

| And BTW, I haven't seen any proponent of this scheme (which I consider
| a bug, not a feature) address these two points: (1) how do you resolve
| overlap conflicts between the tags -- a problem which will only get
| worse as more mailing lists are created and (2) if you are filtering
| on the tag, how do you distinguish mail sent via the mailing list
| from private mail which contains the same tag (say a private followup
| to a message sent via a mailing list)?

Being no fan of tags either [I have procmail strip them out of my subscrip-
tion copies so that more of the real subject appears on Elm's index screens
and to avoid contributing to #2] and offering them only as a discouraged
option on my own list, I still have to confess that I haven't run into #1 yet.

As to #2, yes, that is a problem.  Sometimes people mistake private replies
for public ones because the tag is still in the subject, and then, even
though the return address and the groupreply addresses of the private message
do not include the list, they might manually address a reply to the list,
not intending to quote private mail there but believing the private message
to have been public.


From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 13:23:50 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA02300; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA02293 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21908
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:20:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990305162016.A21794@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:20:16 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org> <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051353590.-282441@helium.jetpen.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051353590.-282441@helium.jetpen.com>; from Rasmus Lerdorf on Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:58:05PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:58:05PM -0500, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Well, some of us need to live in the real world.

As someone who has been running mailing lists for the better part of
two decades, I think I *do* live in the real world.  I think your
recommendation is better directed at people who sign up for mailing
lists which generate volumnious traffic but who fail to ensure that
they can cope with the direct result of their own actions.

> > > I think 1) is irrelevant.  The chances of one person signing up for two
> > > lists with overlapping tags it pretty remote.
> > 
> > And you base this on what statistical study, exactly? 

I note with interest that you have not answered this question.  Have you
in fact performed a quantitative analysis or survey of any kind on this point?

> > Oh, and FYI: It has already happened.
>
> Not to me nor to anybody on any of my lists.

I didn't say it happened to you.  And how do you *know*, for a fact, that
it has not happened to anybody on any of your lists?  Did you ask them
all?  Or are you just assuming that this is the case because no one has
informed you of such a situation?  Has it occured to you that the possibility
exists that it *has* happened to someone on one of your mailing lists
and that they didn't see fit -- for whatever reason -- to tell you about it?

> Not much point discussing it.  I have been running mailing lists for about
> 8 years now.  If someone were to remove this capability from my mailing
> list software, I am luckily capable of putting it back in myself.  Someone
> asked about the merits of this and I am simply saying that there are
> people out there who find it useful.

Whether there are some people who find it useful or not is not at issue here.

What is at issue are other things like, is it advisable?  Is it scalable?
What problems can it cause?  How does it comply with standards?  What
alternatives exist?  Are those alternatives better?

> > Then why don't you use a mail client that lets you set the visual
> > cue based on the "To:" line?
> 
> Are there any that can do this?

Yes, there is at least one: mutt.  I'd be mildly surprised to learn
that there aren't others.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 13:40:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA02330; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA02322 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:21:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA21945;
	Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:22:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990305162252.B21794@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:22:52 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org> <199903051805.AA160907140@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903051805.AA160907140@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>; from Mitch Collinsworth on Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:05:40PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:05:40PM -0500, Mitch Collinsworth wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to make allowances for people who
> >are simultaneously (1) voluntarily signing up to receive large amounts
> >of mail from one or more mailing lists and (2) failing to ensure that they
> >have sufficient software tools and expertise to cope with (1).
> 
> So now you're against digests, too?

I've made no such statement, ever, here or elsewhere.  Please do not
fabricate opinions and then falsely attribute them to me.  It is offensive
and rude.  It's also unnecessary.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 15:38:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA03953; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:33:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA03946 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Mercury.mcs.net (dattier@Mercury.mcs.net [192.160.127.80]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA23627 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:34:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mercury.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id RAA90086 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:34:10 -0600 (CST)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@Mcs.Net>
Message-Id: <199903052334.RAA90086@Mercury.mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 17:34:10 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <199903051805.AA160907140@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> from "Mitch Collinsworth" at Mar 5, 99 01:05:40 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

When Rich Kulawiec wrote,

K> I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to make allowances for people who
K> are simultaneously (1) voluntarily signing up to receive large amounts
K> of mail from one or more mailing lists and (2) failing to ensure that they
K> have sufficient software tools and expertise to cope with (1).

Mitch Collinsworth responded,

C> So now you're against digests, too?

It doesn't look that way to me.  Taking a list in digest mode qualifies in
my book as using a software tool to cope with having voluntarily signed up
to receive large amounts of mail from that list.  According to what Mitch
quoted from Rich's post, Rich must be in favor of digests.


From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar  5 20:53:30 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA07214; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA07207 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 20:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA06905;
	Fri, 5 Mar 1999 23:40:52 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990305232950.0345ac40@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 23:29:50 -0500
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca>
 <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org>
 <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:54 AM 3/5/99 -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

>I think this is a pretty straightforward idea: to put it bluntly, if you
>can't handle 100+ messages a day, don't sign up for mailing lists which
>deliver 100+ messages a day.  Or, if you do, then it is up to *you*,
>the end user, to ensure that you have appropriate tools to deal with it.

What is the corollary here?  It is up to the list manager to provide the
user no help, since it should be as hard as possible for them to be on our
lists?  After all, being on a mailing list *should* be a punishment for
something.
--
I'm going to change my name to 'Squawk' because that is what my parrots
call me.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 05:09:30 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA15484; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 05:03:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA15477 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 05:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25886
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:05:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990306080518.A25874@gsp.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:05:18 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca> <19990305065931.A16467@gsp.org> <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051027220.-951317@krone.lerdorf.on.ca> <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org> <3.0.5.32.19990305232950.0345ac40@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990305232950.0345ac40@127.0.0.1>; from Nick Simicich on Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 11:29:50PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 11:29:50PM -0500, Nick Simicich wrote:
> What is the corollary here?  It is up to the list manager to provide the
> user no help, since it should be as hard as possible for them to be on our
> lists?

Nope.  There is no corollary.

But I will add two comments:

1. I feel it is each end-user's personal responsibility to ensure that
they have adequate computing resources and tools, and sufficient knowledge,
to use whatever they're trying to use.  I have no sympathy for people who
fail to equip themselves appropriately and then expect the rest of us
to solve their self-created problems.

2. I have never said that list managers should not provide any help.
Nor have I ever said that they should make it as hard as possible.
I will say, however, that list managers should take care that in
attemping to help the users who fall into the category described in (1)
that they do not do a disservice to the users who have actually taken
the time and trouble (and perhaps expense, although that's very minimal)
to think about what they're trying to do and set themselves up
appropriately.


---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 17:51:57 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23802; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23792 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:35:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from onelist.com (www.onelist.com [209.207.164.157]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA09564 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28461 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1999 17:58:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO corp.onelist.com) (206.79.71.90)
  by www.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 1999 17:58:59 -0000
Message-ID: <36DECA76.181FE514@corp.onelist.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 18:01:26 +0000
From: Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.onelist.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: ONElist Shared Files
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Just a quick announcement of something you all might be interested in.
ONElist has recently announced a new feature for our lists called File
Sharing. Each of our lists now has 5 megs of space dedicated to a
private file sharing area. You (and your subscribers if you wish) can
upload files to it through your web browser, and your subscribers can
view the files. It has a lot of advantages over sending files as
attachments. 

In addition, list managers can flag files to be emailed to their list
either bi-weekly or monthly. This is great for frequently asked question
lists and other reminders. And managers can flag files so that they are
sent to users when they: are pending subscription, subscribe,
unsubscribe, and are banned. This is great for subscriber
questionnaires, welcome messages and goodbye messages(and you can have
as many of each as you want).

For more information on our shared files and other features, check out
http://www.onelist.com.

Thanks!


Mark
ONElist Team


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 18:17:14 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA24001; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:37:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23991 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA28239 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:30:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id JAA16521; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 09:30:54 -0700 (MST)
From: "Tom Neff" <tneff@panix.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Another wave of spam s*bscriptions?
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:31:20 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGCEDKCBAA.tneff@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
In-Reply-To: <199903050900.BAA20792@honor.greatcircle.com>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Importance: Normal
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I just got a series of s*bscribes from biggcat2@hotmail.com,
dogbone2@webtv.net, etc.  I assume it was to glom the s*bsriber list, which
I don't allow members to do.  Do you think I should boot these entries off
the list?



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 18:32:59 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA24089; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:38:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA24078 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:38:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.networkone.net (mail.networkone.net [209.144.112.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA02779 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:57:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jet (assured-01-39.ln.networkone.net [209.144.118.40])
	by mail.networkone.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA16039
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:57:57 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990305135709.00e76ec0@ptw.com>
X-Sender: juniper@ptw.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 13:57:09 -0800
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: jet <juniper@ptw.com>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
In-Reply-To: <199903050900.BAA20792@honor.greatcircle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 01:00 AM 3/5/99 -0800, you wrote:

>Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject 
>line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time, but as far 
>as I know, virtually every list admin has had the good sense *not* to 
>enable this.  This morning, I got treated to the following:
>
>[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] DC Block Splitters]]
>
>    (which brings up a more subtle problem of this style of list setup:
>    if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
>    in violation of rfc850: 
>
This just came up on another list I sub to. The problem in the above
subject line appears to be a bug in Netscape Web Mail, not Majordomo.


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 18:48:05 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23873; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23849 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kachina.jetcafe.org (kachina.jetcafe.org [205.147.43.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA13843 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:38:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom12.netcom.com [192.100.81.124])
	by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA18580;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990304143257.009e8d90@pop.climber.org>
X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 14:32:57 -0800
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
From: SRE <eckert@climber.org>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:42 AM 3/4/99 -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
>So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to 
>onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?  Would any of you 
>actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or another listserv]?  
>Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo 
>as being a bad idea?

Several server packages let you insert a subject prefix. Majordomo2 lets
you insert any string you like, and automatically takes out duplicates
like the one you showed. Responding to something with a prefix will NOT
produce another copy of the prefix. I think Listserv is the same way.

Instead of removing the feature, submit a bug report for the duplicate
occurrances of the prefix.


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 19:18:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23890; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23863 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA14525 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28916 invoked by uid 50); 4 Mar 1999 23:31:13 -0000
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: "Bernie Cosell"'s message of "Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:42:23 -0500"
Date: 04 Mar 1999 15:31:13 -0800
Message-ID: <ylr9r4kf26.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes:

> So, am I just being a luddite, yet again, or should I send complaints to
> onelist [although fat lot of good it'll do I suspect]?  Would any of you
> actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or another listserv]?
> Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo
> as being a bad idea?

I use it.  Unsurprisingly, for the same lists that also want Reply-To set
to the list.  Yes, I agree, it's a bad idea in general and I don't like it
on lists that I'm on, but when I've got a whole bunch of very chatty
mostly AOL users who know very little about computers and just want to
talk to each other on a mailing list, this is the sort of stuff that makes
their lives a lot easier.

The subject prefixes, and the reply-to settings, are working around
serious usability problems in a lot of common PC e-mail clients.  The way
to get rid of both of them permanently is to manage to get the expected
minimal feature set (and usability of the features) in standard e-mail
clients high enough that unskilled computer users can cope with mailing
lists that don't have those sorts of artificial cues.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 19:32:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23739; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:34:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23731 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:34:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cr864798-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com (cr864798-a.ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com [24.112.22.167]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA21635 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:43:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thinkage.com (catonium.thinkage.on.ca [192.168.0.199])
    by dognose.com (8.9.0/dognose981021-8.9.0)
        with ESMTP id RAA26017;
                Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:43:38 -0500
Message-ID: <36DDBB19.600C1472@thinkage.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:43:37 -0500
From: "Ken D." <ken@thinkage.com>
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Making list archives public by any means... topica or otherwise.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
> At 08:27 PM 2/28/99 -0800, Michelle Dick wrote:
> >Or rather they ask for something of value from you for free and hope
> >that you think what they offer in return is of greater value.
> >Assuming that it is is rather presumptuous on their part.
>
> Not really. I bet the vast majority of the list managers do *not* get a
> penny for their archives, and some probably even pay their ISPs to run the
> archives. In your case, yes, you have very little incentive to let someone
> else duplicate your content and thereby take money out of your pocket, but
> I would bet you are the rare list owner who is making money on their archives.

or in my view of the world, since my archives of digests contain the email
addresses of my subscribers, i feel it necessary to 'protect' the archives
from public email harvesting.

each email address on each and every user's posting on my digests
is a sacred trust. they don't need me to increase their spam reception
levels.

the archives are available to *current* list members only.

and yes i do it all for free, using vast amounts of disk space after 8 years
of 2 large lists.

    -ken


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 19:47:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA24047; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:38:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA24037 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunlab.bellglobal.com (smtp.lerdorf.on.ca [199.243.250.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA00442 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from collective.lerdorf.on.ca (collective.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.23])
	by sunlab.bellglobal.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA20001;
	Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:59:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 13:58:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
In-Reply-To: <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051353590.-282441@helium.jetpen.com>
X-X-Sender: rasmus@imap3.bellglobal.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> I don't know or care if it runs on Windows: when I have on my mailing 
> list manager's hat, the end-user's choice of computing platforms is not
> my concern.  If the end-user has chosen a computing platform which is
> incapable of adequately performing the tasks which the end-user requires
> of it, then it is the end-user's responsibility to address the problem.

Well, some of us need to live in the real world.

> > I think 1) is irrelevant.  The chances of one person signing up for two
> > lists with overlapping tags it pretty remote.
> 
> And you base this on what statistical study, exactly? 
> 
> Oh, and FYI: It has already happened.

Not to me nor to anybody on any of my lists.

Not much point discussing it.  I have been running mailing lists for about
8 years now.  If someone were to remove this capability from my mailing
list software, I am luckily capable of putting it back in myself.  Someone
asked about the merits of this and I am simply saying that there are
people out there who find it useful.

> > 2) you should note that I am not actually filtering on the tag.
> > Just using it as a visual cue in a long list of messages.  
> 
> Then why don't you use a mail client that lets you set the visual
> cue based on the "To:" line?

Are there any that can do this?

-Rasmus



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 20:02:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23821; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23811 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from epithumia.math.uh.edu (epithumia.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA10786 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tibbs@localhost)
	by epithumia.math.uh.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA03935;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 13:22:00 -0600
To: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <199903041542.KAA11083@ctc.swva.net>
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Date: 04 Mar 1999 13:22:00 -0600
In-Reply-To: "Bernie Cosell"'s message of "Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:42:23 -0500"
Message-ID: <ufazp5tkqlj.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
Lines: 30
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070065 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.65) Emacs/20.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "BC" == Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes:

BC> Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject
BC> line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time, but as
BC> far as I know, virtually every list admin has had the good sense *not*
BC> to enable this.

I have this enabled on some of my Majordomo lists (by demand of the users,
not because I like the idea) and have _never_ seen that behavior.  The
prefix is never repeated.  I'm also on a bunch of Majordomo-run lists that
have prefixes set and I've never seen duplication there, either.

BC> Would any of you actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo [or
BC> another listserv]?

Sure, although there are better ways to filter, on a less technical list
the users seem to like it.  And after all, the users are the reason the
list is run.

BC> Should we/i suggest to the greatcircle folk to remove it from majordomo
BC> as being a bad idea?

Well, as the person doing the Majordomo coding currently, you could ask me
about it, but I doubt that the code is ever going to change because too
many lists rely on it.  I would be happy to fix any bugs with this in the
development version of Majordomo; the prefix should never be repeated and
should never appear in the archives or in message sent to users who have
elected not to receive their messages with prefixes.

 - J<


From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 20:17:29 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23921; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23877 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunlab.bellglobal.com (smtp.lerdorf.on.ca [199.243.250.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA14727 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:53:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from collective.lerdorf.on.ca (collective.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.23])
	by sunlab.bellglobal.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA19684;
	Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:55:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:53:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
In-Reply-To: <19990304154717.A8032@gsp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903041846520.-333381@helium.jetpen.com>
X-X-Sender: rasmus@imap3.bellglobal.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> >  Would any of you actually make use of this 'feature' of Majordomo
> > [or another listserv]?  
> 
> Absolutely not.   I consider it a misguided attempt to solve a problem
> that is better solved by sufficiently smart filtering tools.

Not to start a religious war here, but I think the feature has some
merits.  I don't use Majordomo for my lists, but in my case the header
never ends up with multiple tags in the subject because the mailing list
software checks for that.

I personally like it because many people are not able to install procmail
or other sorts of filters on their mail host.  This is a quick way to scan
through a large mailbox and use your eye to quickly filter and
differentiate between messages.

And no, client-side filtering is not the answer.  I read my mail from
about 8 different machines in many different locations.  I have a central
IMAP mailstore and it is essential that I leave all my mail on my central
server so I can get at it from anywhere.  The one thing that would help
here is if more mail clients would support read-time client-side filtering
as seen in the great ML mail client from Mike MacGirvin.  Unfortunately
this client is no longer being developed and I have not seen this feature
in any other mail client. 

So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue being a proponent of this
feature given that it is implemented correctly and that the tag is nice
and short so it doesn't obscure too much of the subject line.

-Rasmus



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 20:32:20 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA24123; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA24111 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sunlab.bellglobal.com (smtp.lerdorf.on.ca [199.243.250.75]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA04310 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from collective.lerdorf.on.ca (collective.lerdorf.on.ca [207.164.141.23])
	by sunlab.bellglobal.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA20101;
	Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:05:21 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 19:03:43 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca>
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
In-Reply-To: <19990305162016.A21794@gsp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051855160.-251577@helium.jetpen.com>
X-X-Sender: rasmus@imap3.bellglobal.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> I didn't say it happened to you.  And how do you *know*, for a fact, that
> it has not happened to anybody on any of your lists?  Did you ask them
> all?  Or are you just assuming that this is the case because no one has
> informed you of such a situation?  Has it occured to you that the possibility
> exists that it *has* happened to someone on one of your mailing lists
> and that they didn't see fit -- for whatever reason -- to tell you about it?

In which case it obviously didn't worry them enough to complain about it.
Having something in the subject line does not interfere with standard
filtering.  I would never suggest to anybody to filter based on the
subject.  That would be silly.

> What is at issue are other things like, is it advisable?  Is it scalable?
> What problems can it cause?  How does it comply with standards?  What
> alternatives exist?  Are those alternatives better?

Ok, and I tossed in a data point showing that it has worked well for me
and all the people that subscribe to my lists.  The PHP mailing lists (see
www.php.net) are relatively busy and the audience is relatively technical.
So far nobody has complained about the list name in the subject line and
when we switched list server software last year and didn't have the
listname in the subject initially we got quite a few complaints.

The one other area where it helps is when you have several lists that
cover variations on the same topic.  like x-announce, x-support,
x-development.  It's nice to be able to group those in a single x folder
and when you look through it see [X-ANN], [X-SUPP] and [X-DEV] in the
subject lines.  This cuts down on the number of filtered folders you need
to manage and groups things based on topics while making it obvious where
each message was posted to.

-Rasmus



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 20:47:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA23678; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id RAA23668 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gatekeeper.liffe.com (gatekeeper.liffe.com [156.48.254.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA16760 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 08:10:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ssdevmjb01 (ssdevmjb01 [156.48.87.94])
	by ssdevmjb01.liffe (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA15713
	for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:10:42 GMT
Message-Id: <199903031610.QAA15713@ssdevmjb01.liffe>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:10:42 +0000 (BST)
From: Michael Bennett <mjb@mailrelay.liffe.com>
Reply-To: Michael Bennett <mjb@mailrelay.liffe.com>
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-MD5: 7MDibUia+R5Pot8U+NgLwQ==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc 
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I don't often comment but this is the law in the UK on copyright.

Copyright must be proved based on the proof of creation.

The most common way of proving copyright, is by posting the copyright subject in 
a sealed envelope to yourself through the Post Office as recorded delivery.  
This then should never be opened.

Proving copyright over the internet is nigh on impossible, unless the source can 
clearly be identified as originating from you.

Regards

Michael Bennett

> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:33:56 +0000
> From: Jon Parry-McCulloch <jm@antipope.org>
> To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
> Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> 
> My Quivering Choad tells me that Randy Cassingham had this to say:
>  
> > (BTW: your belief that individual postings to mailing lists are
> > copyrighted is correct; the Berne Convention makes the copyright
> > protections valid across many continents.  A specific copyright
> > NOTICE in the message(s) is NOT required.  It wasn't worth a
> > separate post to say that, but you are indeed right about it.)
> 
> But I have emails from you - and lots of them - in which you claim that
> copyright isn't valid unless it's "registered". So, which is it?
> 
> Oh yes, and you still haven't confirmed whether or not you have deleted
> the material of mine that you used without my permission from your
> servers and archives as I asked you to. 
> 
> Have you done this yet, or are you going to do it in the future?
> 
> --
> Jon
> 
> ******************************************************************************
> 	
> 	If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of 
> 	others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned 
> 	to slave labor.
> 	
> 	-- Ayn Rand
> 
> ******************************************************************************



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 22:50:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27784; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:23:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA27777 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:23:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA05542
	; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:28:47 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04104407b307c7ce923b@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGCEDKCBAA.tneff@panix.com>
References: <199903050900.BAA20792@honor.greatcircle.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:06:20 -0800
To: "Tom Neff" <tneff@panix.com>, <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Another wave of spam s*bscriptions?
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 11:31 AM -0500 3/5/99, Tom Neff wrote:
> I just got a series of s*bscribes from biggcat2@hotmail.com,
> dogbone2@webtv.net, etc.  I assume it was to glom the s*bsriber list, which
> I don't allow members to do.  Do you think I should boot these entries off
> the list?

I'd ask them first. If they don't answer, you're probably right.

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 23:04:45 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27688; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id WAA27680 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:16:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA26486 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:05:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA15458 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:06:52 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 21:06:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Introduction / Questions
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Ok, a quick intro for myself. :)

I'm the original author (and still lead developer) of the less-well-known
mailing list server 'Listar', in my ever-decreasing spare time. :)  I
thought I'd subscribe to this list to see what people's
opinions/requests/mentality on mailing list software and management in
general is, to get an idea of where to focus future development on Listar. 
(I figure a package is only useful if it does what people need/want, so I
should find out what list managers in general need/want.) 

I've been reading through the archives of the list to catch up before
joining (some interesting discussions), and I have a few basic questions
for people... some things I've been trying to collect information on for a
while.  I DID read the thread on HTML formatted e-mail, but it didn't
entirely answer my question, which is more on the ETHICS of altering
the message, so...

* One capability I gave Listar quite some time back was the ability to
  decode alternative mail formats.  (In Listar's terminology, it's called
  'humanize-mime'.)  This basically ensures that any posts to a list
  with humanize-mime set true are in a nice, standard plaintext format,
  and do not include binary attachments.  (Attachments that are a 
  recognizable text format will be decoded and added to the main message
  body.)  While I feel this is a useful option, I have heard one or two
  complaints (usually from people who like to post binary files), that
  this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
  want'.  While the majority of users have not be displeased with the 
  option (and some are in fact overjoyed it's there), I was curious if
  any of the list maintainers out there thought that stripping binary
  attachments was an ETHICAL problem?

* Password, versus other methods of authentication.  I lean towards a
  'cookie' method similar to Majordomo's subscription confirmation
  tickets.  This has the advantage of not requiring an administrator
  to remember a password, and is less readily spoofable.  It has the
  downside, however, of requiring two mail messages per administrative
  session.  (One to retrieve the 'wrapper' for an admin session, and one
  to submit it back and have it processed.)  Do other list admins
  prefer a password method that requires only one message, or a more
  secure method that requires two messages per admin session and doesn't
  require a password to be memorized?

* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
  isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
  memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
  sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
  installations, which do their own queue optimization.

There.  Those are my three simple starting questions.  Thanks in advance!
:)

--Loki (http://www.listar.org/)



From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 23:19:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA28116; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA28109 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA26196
	; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:58:34 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v0410440fb307d2610f62@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <199903031610.QAA15713@ssdevmjb01.liffe>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:52:42 -0800
To: Michael Bennett <mjb@mailrelay.liffe.com>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: Definition of spam (was Topica)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 4:10 PM +0000 3/3/99, Michael Bennett wrote:

> The most common way of proving copyright, is by posting the 
> copyright subject in
> a sealed envelope to yourself through the Post Office as recorded delivery.
> This then should never be opened.

And while this method is recommended by some people in the States, 
it's been tested in court and failed on a number of occasions.  FWIW. 
For one reason, people have mailed EMPTY envelopes to themselves and 
then filled and sealed them later....

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar  6 23:34:48 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA27660; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id WAA27652 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 22:16:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from iss.dccc.edu (iss.dccc.edu [207.103.163.10]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA22373 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 17:03:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.103.163.10] by iss.dccc.edu id a1c60.wrk; Sat, 6 Mar 1999 20:14:12 EDT
Message-ID: <36E1D2AA.2ED6@iss.dccc.edu>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 17:13:14 -0800
From: Keith Flippin <DrJesus@iss.dccc.edu>
Reply-To: DrJesus@iss.dccc.edu
Organization: NE-Raves Discussion List Admin.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <199903050900.BAA20792@honor.greatcircle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

"Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote:

> Gripe of the day is putting the list-name as a prefix on the subject
> line.  Majordomo has had the ability to do this for some time,

And as was already notes, handles this better than OneList. I use this
on my Majordomo-based list, and I find it to be a boon both to myself
and to my users.

The reasons are, to me, fairly simple, but they may also be fairly
unique. The list I run is one of a number of regional lists dealing with
the underground dance music scene. There are a number of the lists that
cover wide areas, such as the NorthEast (NER), SouthEast (SER), MidWest
(MWR), etc. But there are also smaller subregions, such as the following
in my NER area: New York City (NYC), Baltimore/Washington (DCR),
Pitsburgh/Cleveland (PB-CLE), Boston (BR), and Western New York/Southern
Ontario (WNYSOR). Crossposting is frequent between the subregions and
the superregion, since posts are often on-topic for both, and having the
tag in the subject is handy, particularly when the thread started in a
subregion.

Also, the different lists have different moderation styles, which are
usually more lax in the subregions; thus many NER readers have told me
they delete anything with, say, (nyc) in the subject since they know
it's likely to be useless drek, particularly when that reader lives
near, say, Pittsburgh and wouldn't go to an NYC event even if it were
free.

> if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
> in violation of rfc850:

And none of these are; thankfully, considering the state of alt.rave.

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:

> I figure that users fall into two categories:
> 
>    1) Those who don't get very much mail (whether from mailing lists
>            or private individuals) and who therefore don't need to
>            filter/sort it (e.g. procmail).
> 
>    2) Those who get a lot of mail and need to filter/sort it.

Maybe this is true on your lists. The rave lists, however, attract a
rather high quotient of net.newbies who wouldn't know a filter if it
leapt up and bit them on the ass. Many are on both my list and one or
more subregional lists, and all of these are fairly high traffic (20-200
msg/day regional, 50-300 or thereabouts subregional) and a lot of people
leave precisely because they can't handle the traffic and refuse to deal
with a digest. <shrug>

And even the ones who have heard of filters aren't likely to use them,
in my experience. Firstly because people who still post unzubscribe
messages to the list address are not likely to be cacpable of properly
configuring their filters. Secondly because most people stick with the
software they got bundled with their system, and if it doesn't have
filters they can figure out how to use, they are *not* going to go out
and spend money to get a mail reader that does. They're far more likely
to whine (on the list, of course) about the things they personally don't
think should be allowed on the list. FWIW, I tend to squelch those
threads quickly.

> Further, this scheme falls apart the moment two mailing lists pick the
> same acronym.   Is [FB] traffic about football or furballs?

Good point, but again irrelevant in my case at least. The Rave lists
tend to remain aware of eachother, especially since many of them are
hosted off the same server (Hyperreal.org, on the same box as
Apache.org) and there's some tacit agreement avoiding mane collision.
It's not impossible for it to happen, but it is a safe bet that, should
it ever occur, the previous "owner" of the tag would get the upstart to
change.

> I consider it a misguided attempt to solve a problem that is better
> solved by sufficiently smart filtering tools.

And are you buying your users better filtering tools? Or just forcing
your opinions on them? I feel that part of my job is to make the list as
easy to use for as many people as possible without it becoming a new
unpaid full-time job. But then, these lists have been historically more
of an anarchodemocracy than many other lists, so perhaps this again is a
case of different strokes.

"Kenneth E. Bannister" <kenbannister@groundwater.com> wrote:

> It lets them know that the message is in fact from my list and is not
> just a personal message from someone.

I find this is often not the case. Particularly when someone replies
privately to a public post, almost no one removes the list-tag from the
subject line. People who rely exclusively on that tag for determining
the origin of mail then often mistakenly assume that the private mail
was a public post, and reply publicly. This, IMHO, is the greatest
failing of the subject tag system, and I find myself often reminding my
users to check their headers and keep private mail private. FWIW, I
*always* remove the tag before replying privately, just to avoid that
issue; and if it's especially important that it remain private, I state
at the top that "This is private e-mail; direct your reply to me and not
to the list" or something to that effect.

-- 

<DrJesus@iss.dccc.edu> NE-Raves Account Admin
<kflippin@indole.net>  Geoff Capp Productions
"Om Ah Hum Vajra Guru Padma Siddhi Hum"




From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar  7 06:13:46 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA05080; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA05073 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 05:48:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA07927;
	Sun, 7 Mar 1999 08:48:52 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990307082726.03558300@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 08:27:26 -0500
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.10.9903051353590.-282441@helium.jetpen.com>
References: <19990305105402.A18350@gsp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

>> Then why don't you use a mail client that lets you set the visual
>> cue based on the "To:" line?
>
>Are there any that can do this?

And unless the MLM mungs the header, why is it useful?  (Trick question, it
is not.)
--
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar  7 08:39:19 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA06378; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 07:51:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA06369 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 07:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id JAA24937 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:52:13 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id JAA07550 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:52:13 -0600 (CST)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@Mcs.Net>
Message-Id: <199903071552.JAA07550@Jupiter.mcs.net>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 09:52:12 -0600 (CST)
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <36E1D2AA.2ED6@iss.dccc.edu> from "Keith Flippin" at Mar 6, 99 05:13:14 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca> wrote,

L> So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue being a proponent of this
L> feature given that it is implemented correctly and that the tag is nice
L> and short so it doesn't obscure too much of the subject line.

... and that individual users who do not want tags need not opt in (or at
the least can opt out).

BTW, Onelist does not normally repeat tags, but if a list name is long, as
many have to be to avoid name clashes, the tag pushes too much of the real
subject out of view when there is a limited field width.  Onelist's list for
mailing list managers is named emaillist-managers; every post's subject is
padded with the twenty-three characters of "[emaillist-managers] " either at
the beginning or after "Re: ".

eGroups has been known to accumulate repeated tags, though.  I've received
posts with three tags in the incoming subject line.

When Kenneth E. Bannister <kenbannister@groundwater.com> wrote,

B> It lets them know that the message is in fact from my list and is not
B> just a personal message from someone.

Keith Flippin <DrJesus@iss.dccc.edu> responded,

F> I find this is often not the case. Particularly when someone replies
F> privately to a public post, almost no one removes the list-tag from the
F> subject line. People who rely exclusively on that tag for determining
F> the origin of mail then often mistakenly assume that the private mail
F> was a public post, and reply publicly. This, IMHO, is the greatest
F> failing of the subject tag system, and I find myself often reminding my
F> users to check their headers and keep private mail private.

I couldn't agree more with that particular comment from Mr. Flippin.  It has
happened to me that someone assumed, based on the tag in the subject, that my
private reply was public.  I told him that was ridiculous, because the list
where it occurred also clobbers Reply-To:, so when he overrode the return
address and directed his reply to the list instead of me he clearly knew it
had not been a list distribution.  He responded that he never uses his mail
client's reply feature but always selects the text if he wants to quote it
and drops it into a freshly addressed message (somehow managing to copy the
subject as well).

F> FWIW, I *always* remove the tag before replying privately, just to avoid
F> that issue;

I have my .procmailrc remove tags on all posts from lists that tag (the only
one I belong to where tagging is optional is the one I run), since they are
of no benefit to me, they annoy me by pushing part of the real subject out of
view on Elm's index screen, and they confuse people to whom I send private
replies.  This way I don't have to remove them from the subjects of private
replies.

F> and if it's especially important that it remain private, I state
F> at the top that "This is private e-mail; direct your reply to me and not
F> to the list" or something to that effect.

One should include that whenever one replies privately to a list distribu-
tion, except to a familiar correspondent whom one knows to be familiar with
the ideas, not just when privacy is especially important.  It's surprising
how many don't know, or when cornered claim not to know or even deny, that it
is rude and probably illegal to quote private correspondence into a public
forum without the writer's consent.


From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar  7 15:00:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA10381; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:48:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA10374 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 14:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gerald@localhost)
	by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03385;
	Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:48:46 -0500
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 17:48:45 -0500
From: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Size of HTML vs plaintext
Message-ID: <19990307174844.A3177@impressive.net>
References: <000b01be60a4$58b65540$7b0c86c0@brouard.ined.fr> <yl1zjemrwz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <yl1zjemrwz.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>; from Russ Allbery on Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 07:20:12AM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 25, 1999 at 07:20:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Nicolas Brouard <brouard@ined.fr> writes:
> > I choosed HTML but as I am also interested by bandwith consideration, I
> > looked at both sources: the plaintext file is 28,977 characters long and
> > the HTML is 39,755 characters. It is 37% more. It is not 3 times bigger
> > as it was said on this list.
> 
> Yes.  Three times larger is only if you have a *really* pathetically bad
> converter.  For comparison, here's the size difference for my faq2html
> script, which I use to generate HTML versions of various FAQs I maintain
> for posting on the web:
> 
> windlord:~/faqs> ls -l mjqmail mjqmail.html 
> -rw-r--r--   1 eagle    root        21246 Feb 15 07:20 mjqmail
> -rw-r--r--   1 eagle    root        22736 Feb 25 07:13 mjqmail.html
> 
> See <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/mjqmail.html>.
> 
> Now, this gets a lot worse with quoted text, since HTML doesn't have good
> mechanisms to deal with that (particularly with nested quoting).  So in a
> discussion context, things are messier.

Note that you don't need to escape '>' when converting from plain
text to HTML (which is where a lot of the verbosity can come from
when converting news or mail); you just need to escape '&' and '<'.

Leaving the '>'s as-is is valid HTML, and I've never heard of a
browser that chokes on it (and my news archive software has been
leaving them unescaped for years.)

-- 
Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net>
http://impressive.net/people/gerald/

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar  7 21:29:55 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA14257; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (antiochus-fe0.ultra.net [146.115.8.188]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA14250 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 7 Mar 1999 21:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from voyager (d6.dial-1.cmb.ma.ultra.net [209.6.64.6]) by antiochus-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with SMTP id AAA18166 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 00:20:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990308052042.00ab004c@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: stanr@pop.ma.ultranet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:20:42 -0500
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Stan Ryckman <stanr@sunspot.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 10:42 AM 3/4/99 -0500, Bernie Cosell wrote:
[snip]
>
>[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] Re: [[Home-Sat] DC Block Splitters]]
>
>    (which brings up a more subtle problem of this style of list setup:
>    if it is gatewayed to usenet [as it is in this case] it is actually
>    in violation of rfc850: 

First of all, RFC850 was obsoleted by RFC1036 in 1987.  However, this text:
>
>        If  the  article  is  submitted  in response  to another article
>        (e.g., is a  "followup")  the default subject should  begin 
>        with the  four  characters "Re: " and the References line is
>        required.  (The user might wish to edit the subject of the 
>        followup,  but  the default should begin with  "Re: ".) 

doesn't seem to have been changed.

Neither RFC850 nor 1036 is, or claims to be, an Internet standard; they
are informational documents (which, among other things, means they got out
without the severe scrutiny that a standard requires; I don't think the
above switch from discussing protocols to discussing news clients would
have survived in wording like that, for example).

I'm not sure what it means to be "in violation of" a non-standards RFC.

Besides, a "correct" implementation of the tag *does* end up with the
"Re: " preceding the (single) tag in followups--this is needed for mail
clients to reasonably sort by subject as well.  (Or, the gatewayed copy
of the list could be sent without the tag to avoid any USENET issues.)

Cheers,
Stan (feeling nitpicky this evening)


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 02:15:09 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA17733; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA17724 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:03:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA19451 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:04:24 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:04:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19990308052042.00ab004c@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990308014529.2342x-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Stan Ryckman wrote:

> I'm not sure what it means to be "in violation of" a non-standards RFC.

Not much, I think.  I don't know of many listservers that correctly
implement RFC1153 (mailing list digests) in all its glory.

Realistically, the subject tag should NOT be used for sorting, for the
reasons mentioned earlier in this thread (primarily that, if you're doing
procmail filters on that and someone sends a private reply and doesn't
remove the tag, and you don't have exceptions in your rule for mail
addressed directly to you, it will end up flagged as from that list).
Doubly so since not all mailing list packages will add the subject tag if
the subject line is blank.  (Majordomo, for example.)

However, in fairness, sorting on the To: line isn't always feasible (what
if the list is in Cc: or worse, Bcc:).  Something like an 'X-list: <list>'
header makes it easier to sort on for Procmail users, but people using
Yahoo or other free/limited e-mail services often only have the ability to
create filters based on To:/From:/Cc: and Subject substrings.  As From: 
will usually be different (except on a Lyris list), and To: and Cc: may
not contain the list (or, in the case of a list that can be sent to via
multiple domains, may not contain the CORRECT list address), for some
users, the subject tag -is- the only viable way to do mail filters.  It's
all well and good to say their mail tools are broken, but there's a point
at which you have to make allowances instead of saying 'you're stuck, find
your own solution'.

Moreover, if you have low-traffic lists, it's useful to have.  The Seattle
Linux List went through this discussion, and general user consensus was
that adding '[SLL]' to the subject line didn't harm anything and did help
some of the users.

Similarly, the support and dev lists for Listar are low enough traffic
that I don't wish to sort them into separate folders; I want them in my
inbox where I can see them immediately anyway.  But I do also like to be
able to immediately focus in on traffic from those lists by a simple scan
of my inbox subject listing, which subject tags allow me to do.

Listar is capable of stripping the subject tags from the subject line in
archives and digests, which is one of the main objections I've heard to
the subject tags.  I think L-Soft Listserv can do the same, and I'm pretty
sure Lyris can as well.  Majordomo couldn't internally last time I
checked, but it's a pretty trivial hack to make.  After all, digested
users don't usually need to see the subject tags; they KNOW what list the
posts were for. 

Anyway, I think they -do- have their uses, though if implemented WRONG,
they can be more trouble than they're worth.  From a software standpoint,
they should ALWAYS be _optional_, though.  Ideally, up to the user whether
or not they see them, but as that can mess up how things are sent, it
should at least be up to the admin whether or not the list uses them.

My $0.02 + state sales tax. ;)
--
  Jeremy Blackman
  loki@maison-otaku.net / jeremy@lith.com / loki@lithtech.com


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 02:30:10 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA17935; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:18:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from beat.kiss.fi (beat.kiss.fi [193.65.198.40]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA17903 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 02:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost by beat.kiss.fi (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06311
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:18:51 +0200 (EET)
X-Authentication-Warning: beat.kiss.fi: tuupola owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:18:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Mika Tuupola <tuupola@appelsiini.net>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903081215100.23400-100000@beat.kiss.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Jeremy Blackman wrote:

>   this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
>   want'.  While the majority of users have not be displeased with the 

	List manager also has a right not to allow binary postings
	through his / her lists. I cant't see a problem there. If
	user for some reason insists on posting binary files and list
	policy doesn't allow that, maybe the user should find another
	list where the user can express his / her freedom of "posting
	whatever he wants".

>   memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
>   sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
>   installations, which do their own queue optimization.

	Actually IMO every feature should be configureable.


-- 
Mika Tuupola                    	       tuupola@appelsiini.net
Appelsiini Networks                        http://www.appelsiini.net/ 


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 06:02:05 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA21606; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA21599 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19787
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990308084519.A19666@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:45:19 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
References: <199903050900.BAA20792@honor.greatcircle.com> <36E1D2AA.2ED6@iss.dccc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <36E1D2AA.2ED6@iss.dccc.edu>; from Keith Flippin on Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 05:13:14PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 05:13:14PM -0800, Keith Flippin wrote:
> And are you buying your users better filtering tools?

It's not my responsibility to purchase computing equipment or software
for other people, or show them how to install it/use it.  That is each
individual user's responsibility, and I feel that the best approach is
for me to avoid trying to relieve them of it.

> Or just forcing your opinions on them?

I am forcing *nothing* on them; that seems not only pointless, but futile.

I am simply running the mailing lists under my control the way that I see
fit -- for a myriad of technical and social reasons, some described here --
and users are free to join or leave as they see fit.  Those who choose
to join are expected to have adequately educated themselves and adequately
provisioned themselves to cope with the consequences of that decision.
As you might, from time to time, people who join *don't* do either
one of those things.  This Is Not My Problem.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 06:17:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA21642; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:48:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA21635 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 05:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19840
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:49:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990308084947.B19666@gsp.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:49:47 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>; from Jeremy Blackman on Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 09:06:51PM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 09:06:51PM -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
>   While I feel this is a useful option, I have heard one or two
>   complaints (usually from people who like to post binary files), that
>   this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
>   want'.  

No such right exists.  The owner(s) of mailing lists are the sole
and final arbiters of what formats will be permitted.  I think your
inclusion code to facilitate this is an excellent idea.

> I was curious if any of the list maintainers out there thought that
> stripping binary attachments was an ETHICAL problem?

Not in the least.  Again: this decision is exclusively that of the owner(s).

> * Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
>   or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
>   isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
>   memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
>   sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
>   installations, which do their own queue optimization.

I concur with what you're saying here, but wonder if future sendmail
development will render this unecessary - which would allow you to
rip out the code, making your package smaller/easier to maintain/etc.


---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 07:15:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA22397; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.america.net (smtp.america.net [199.170.121.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA22389 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 06:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from inspiron-7000 (max1-4.shoreham.net [208.144.253.6])
	by smtp.america.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA24259
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:54:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.1.19990308092354.00a61bc0@wingate>
X-Sender: margy@wingate
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 09:27:20 -0500
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Margaret Levine Young <margy@gurus.com>
Subject: Monitoring a Mailing List Site
In-Reply-To: <v03110714b2fb131d672c@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I'm trying to figure out how to monitor the overall activities of a
ListProc site. For example, I'd like to be able to see a listing of the
weekly numbers of subscribers and of postings for all lists. I'd also like
to be able to ask questions like "Which list are moderated?" And I'd like
to be able to tell whenever a list manager changes, so that I can find out
whether the new manager has a clue.

The only way I can figure out to do this with ListProc is a major kludge --
I'm setting up an Access database on a PC that will query ListProc via
e-mail commands to find out the current settings for each list, the list
owners, and the traffic statistics (which are collected by a little script
someone wrote). Then I can use Access queries to see what's going on.

Anyone have a better idea?


Margy Levine Young <margy@gurus.com>
Coauthor of "The Internet For Dummies," 6th Ed. and "Internet: The Complete
Reference" <http://net.gurus.com>. Looking for kids' videos? Check out
<http://www.greattapes.com>

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 14:57:53 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA27273; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from devo.impressive.net (dialup-2229.lcs.mit.edu [18.23.2.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA27266 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from gerald@localhost)
	by devo.impressive.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA03338;
	Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:46:27 -0500
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:46:26 -0500
From: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net>
To: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Putting the listname on the Subject line
Message-ID: <19990308174626.B3266@impressive.net>
References: <2.2.32.19990308052042.00ab004c@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <Pine.LNX.3.95.990308014529.2342x-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990308014529.2342x-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>; from Jeremy Blackman on Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 02:04:24AM -0800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 08, 1999 at 02:04:24AM -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
> for some users, the subject tag -is- the only viable way to do
> mail filters.  It's all well and good to say their mail tools
> are broken, but there's a point at which you have to make
> allowances instead of saying 'you're stuck, find your own
> solution'.

This is all true, but there are two approaches to solving this
problem:

    1) the subject-munging hack (which has various negative
       consequences, as has already been discussed), and

    2) educating users about mail filtering, creating
       documentation to help them understand the filtering
       features of various popular MUAs (and gently nudging
       them towards MUAs that get this stuff right.)

An example of such documentation is:

    http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/filterFAQ.html

I favor this approach because it has the nice side effect of
giving MUA authors an added incentive to implement better
filtering features in their software: if they don't, they'll
end up losing users to other MUAs. (while the subject-munging
approach doesn't give MUA authors any incentive to implement
anything besides filtering on subjects, and we're stuck with
the status quo.)

Of course, having said all that, I agree that needs vary from
list to list and it's up to list managers to decide what's best,
yadda yadda yadda. I'm just trying to encourage my fellow list
managers to avoid subject-munging if at all possible, and to
consider approaches that help improve the state of the art
instead of giving in to today's broken technology.

-- 
Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@impressive.net>
http://impressive.net/people/gerald/

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 21:40:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA01286; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA01279 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:26:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:31:27 -0500
Message-Id: <v03110701b30a5f8367ae@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990308092354.00a61bc0@wingate>
References: <v03110714b2fb131d672c@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:30:40 -0500
To: Margaret Levine Young <margy@gurus.com>
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: Monitoring a Mailing List Site
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 09:27 -0500 3/8/99, Margaret Levine Young said:

>I'm trying to figure out how to monitor the overall activities of a
>ListProc site. For example, I'd like to be able to see a listing of the
*snip*

Margy,

Your question relates specifically to ListProc by CREN, and should be
posted to their support list. From their Tech Support web page at
<http://www.cren.net/listproc/tech.html>:

    Tech support is primarily available through our support
    list, CREN-LISTPROC@list.cren.net. To subscribe, send
    mail to listproc@list.cren.net, with the following in
    the message body: 

    subscribe cren-listproc your-first-name your-last-name 

The list-managers list is primarily for whi^Wspirited discussion of
list-management issues in general, not for support on any specific
platform. From the Welcome message for this list:

>This list is for discussions of issues related to managing Internet
>mailing lists, including (but not limited to) methods, mechanisms,
>techniques, policies, and software (in general; questions about
>specific software packages should be directed to the mailing list
>dedicated to that particular package).
>
>Technical questions regarding particular software packages (for
>instance, Majordomo, LISTPROC, ListServ, etc.) are NOT appropriate
>for the List-Managers mailing list.  They should be directed to the
>mailing list dedicated to that particular package (for instance,
>for Majordomo, that's Majordomo-Users@GreatCircle.COM).  Check the
>documentation that came with the package to find out where the support
>list for that package is hosted.

In other words, there is no parking in the Red Zone; the Red Zone is
for loading and unloading only.

I haven't been on the CREN-LISTPROC mailing list for a few years now,
but it used to be a very good list (back when Rob von Behren was there;
I understand that he has left CREN, and was rumored to have recently
been sighted in the Berkeley neighborhood ... <g>). I also recall
that there were TWO lists -- I think they were CREN-LIST and CREN-
LISTPROC. One was stealthy and quite good, the other was advertised
and quite soundly dead. At any rate, if you get no joy from CREN-
LISTPROC, try CREN-LIST. One or the other should work. (Anyone know
the status of these lists?)

Enjoy ...

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar  8 23:17:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA02293; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA02284 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA00671 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:04:36 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:04:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Generic mailing list management system?
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990308225907.2342b-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

This is a project concept that's been being tossed around by people
involved with the mailing list software I write.  I'm curious if anyone
thinks it would be worthwhile (and if so, I'd invite them to help
contribute).  I think it would help the less technically-minded to admin
lists (and I do believe that requiring everyone to learn Listserv or
Majordomo administrative syntax is not the best solution in all cases).

After all, it's easier to teach people a new skill if they can reuse it
multiple places; a standard for remote administration of mailing list
would be fairly useful.

Any thoughts?
-------------
[reposted from listar-dev]

Heya.  I'm finally getting in gear on trying to get the MLMAP project
started, and I'd love to get some others involved.  I created a mailing
list for it (unsurprisingly, it's mlmap@listar.org, and it can be
subscribed to in any of the usual manners, including mailing
listar@listar.org with subscribe mlmap), and a webpage section
(http://www.listar.org/mlmap/), though right now it merely contains the
little project charter (which is also the mailing list welcome text).

For those who are curious, and don't want to have to subscribe to the list
just to read what the heck MLMAP is, here's the little charter for the
project below.

Anyone wanna help? :)
---
MLMAP stands for 'Mailing List Management and Administration Protocol',
and is a protocol to allow a client (be it a standalone X11 or console
client, a Microsoft Outlook plugin, a Macintosh GUI application, or
whatever) to connect to an MLMAP server to perform list management
functions, without regard for what the software the list is running on is.

As the userbase of the Internet grows, a great many users with less
technical inclinations end up in charge of mailing or distribution lists,
and often end up having to call on others to help them administer them.
Not only would having a nice, clean client application help them in so
doing, it would also allow administrators to learn a single administration
interface and not have to worry if the list they're running is on
Majordomo, Smartlist, Listar, Mailman, L-Soft Listserv, or whatever.  Any
mailing list server which implements MLMAP could be administered via an
MLMAP client.  Perhaps MLMAP, if successful, could even be built into
later revisions of mail clients such as Pine or Mutt.

The goals of the MLMAP Project are:

* Design MLMAP in a way that is not tied to any one server.
  - This goal is the one we must be most careful with; keep in mind
    features that one server may have that another might not.  The
    MLMAP protocol must be general enough to allow both lists which
    have individual subscriber options (Listar, Listserv) and those
    which do not (Majordomo, Smartlist), for example.

* Write up a clear specification of the protocol, and submit it as
  an RFC
  - This is vitally important, in order to gain any sort of acceptance
    of the protocol as a 'standard' of any kind.

* Write at least one MLMAP client implementation.
  - This is, obviously, needed as proof-of-concept.  It could be
    a UNIX console app, a Win32 MFC app, an Outlook plugin, an X11
    app, or any number of those.

* Write an MLMAP server implementation.
  - This will probably be done for Listar, as the MLMAP project is
    connected to the Listar developers, and Listar is modular and 
    thus readily modified.
  - It would also not be a bad idea to write an MLMAP implementation
    for majordomo, as a widely-used MLM, to demonstrate further use.





From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 01:44:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA04470; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id BAA04460 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21505 invoked by uid 10086); 9 Mar 1999 09:30:10 -0000
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 03:30:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Ray Jones <rayjones@praline.no.neosoft.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
In-Reply-To: <19990308084947.B19666@gsp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.990309032755.21148C-100000@praline.no.neosoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Rich Kulawiec wrote:

> >   this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they

> No such right exists.  The owner(s) of mailing lists are the sole
> and final arbiters of what formats will be permitted.  I think your

Amen!

Who in the world is so uneducated as to think they have the "right" to
do ANYTHING on a list owned and operated at someone else's expense? Must
be a "Democrat!" (g)


--
Regards,

"Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide    ICQ UIN  1473313
      Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans"
                           ISBN 0-02-862303-7

Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at
	   http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html

or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending:
	subscribe noml		To: majordomo@communique.net


	/"\
        \ /
         X  ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail
        / \                                                


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 11:54:59 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA13357; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA13347 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from there (bobos.emailsol.com [199.103.224.229]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA24548 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:09:53 -0800 (PST)
From: info@emailsol.com
Message-ID: <199903081807.NAA13578@bobos.emailsol.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:07:42 -0500
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Free list hosting at Email Solutions Inc.
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Email Solutions is offering to host one very high volume list for free,
for an unlimited time, on its cluster of servers.
The list will run under ESI's EWorks line of integrated list, SMTP and
web servers.

The list will have its dedicated public, user-configurable (no CGI!),
web server, with all list administration done thru its dedicated
admin web server.

The EWorks product line already serves lists of 500,000+ subscribers,
each generating about 80,000 bounces daily, and the new list we are looking
to host should be around that size.

ENewsWorks(tm) and EListWorks(tm) offer extreme performance characteristics:
500,000+ deliveries ah hour, 99%+ bounce resolution, multi-threaded
job scheduling kernel, multi-threaded ESMTP mail-merge-enabled delivery
engine, unlimited virtual web servers each dedicated to particular list(s),
a fast SQL RDBMS, fault-tolerant checkpointed and recoverable jobs,
and a complete administrative user interface. ESI's products are written
entirely in Java.

Interested parties should email info@emailsol.com with pertinent information,
and may also wish to tour http://demo.emailsol.com for an on-line demo.


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 12:09:19 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA13370; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA13360 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from electra.znyx.com (electra.znyx.com [209.0.10.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA25411 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:48:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c843116-a (machine113.znyx.com [209.0.10.113])
	by electra.znyx.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02888
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:46:18 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990308114651.00b499a4@znyx.com>
X-Sender: alan@znyx.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 11:46:51 -0800
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Alan Deikman <Alan.Deikman@znyx.com>
Subject: Light bulb joke
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I didn't write this, but it is painful how close this
is to actual experience.

Q: How many email list subscribers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 1,331:

1 to change the light bulb and to post to the list that
the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and
how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.

53 to flame the spell checkers

156 to write to the list administrator complaining about
the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this
mail list.

41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.

109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please
take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb

203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling
and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.

111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all
use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant
to this mail list.

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is
superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of
light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands
are faulty.

27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different
light bulbs

14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to
post corrected URLs.

3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are
relevant to this list which makes light bulbs relevant to
this list.

33 to summarize all posts to date, then quote them including
all headers and footers, and then add "Me Too."

12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because
they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.

1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.

47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was
meant for, leave it here.

143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.

-----------------------
  Alan.Deikman@znyx.com


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 12:25:07 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA13832; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:52:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA13820 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA23996;
	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:52:36 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 14:52:16 -0500
To: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku
 .net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:

>* One capability I gave Listar quite some time back was the ability to
>  decode alternative mail formats.  (In Listar's terminology, it's called
>  'humanize-mime'.)  This basically ensures that any posts to a list
>  with humanize-mime set true are in a nice, standard plaintext format,
>  and do not include binary attachments.  (Attachments that are a 
>  recognizable text format will be decoded and added to the main message
>  body.)  While I feel this is a useful option, I have heard one or two
>  complaints (usually from people who like to post binary files), that
>  this is a violation of their 'right to post in whatever format they
>  want'.  While the majority of users have not be displeased with the 
>  option (and some are in fact overjoyed it's there), I was curious if
>  any of the list maintainers out there thought that stripping binary
>  attachments was an ETHICAL problem?

They should get over it.  There is no ethical issue about doing this.  In
fact, I do it - had I discovered listar before I wrote demime, I would
probably have saved myself some work.

>* Password, versus other methods of authentication.  I lean towards a
>  'cookie' method similar to Majordomo's subscription confirmation
>  tickets.  This has the advantage of not requiring an administrator
>  to remember a password, and is less readily spoofable.  It has the
>  downside, however, of requiring two mail messages per administrative
>  session.  (One to retrieve the 'wrapper' for an admin session, and one
>  to submit it back and have it processed.)  Do other list admins
>  prefer a password method that requires only one message, or a more
>  secure method that requires two messages per admin session and doesn't
>  require a password to be memorized?

Before I know this, I wonder if it is possible to easily batch commands
using the cookie method?  For example, I just subscribed a bunch of people
to one list by making a shell one liner that inserted passwords and
subscribed them. Can I do that easily with cookies?

>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
>  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
>  isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
>  memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
>  sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
>  installations, which do their own queue optimization.

Why is it ever bad?  Because the sort for large lists represents a memory
usage bubble?  In my case, I don't think it would matter.


--
Pasta is really just kibble, boiled until soft.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 12:38:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA14569; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godai.maison-otaku.net (godai.maison-otaku.net [216.122.4.156]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA14562 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (loki@localhost) by godai.maison-otaku.net (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA02511; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:35:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: godai.maison-otaku.net: loki owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:35:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
To: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990309123244.2342n-100000@godai.maison-otaku.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Nick Simicich wrote:

> >* Password, versus other methods of authentication.  I lean towards a
>
> Before I know this, I wonder if it is possible to easily batch commands
> using the cookie method?  For example, I just subscribed a bunch of people
> to one list by making a shell one liner that inserted passwords and
> subscribed them. Can I do that easily with cookies?

Yes.  Once you have a cookie, it works along the lines of:

adminvfy <cookie> <list>
<command1>
<command2>
<command3>
[...]
adminend

You can generate the wrapper pre-filled with the commands.  (e.g. instead
of just 'admin <list>' to request an empty wrapper, you can do 'admin2
<list>' and fill out commands between it and 'adminend2', and the wrapper
will automatically be filled out and just needs to be forwarded back).

> >* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
> >  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
> 
> Why is it ever bad?  Because the sort for large lists represents a memory
> usage bubble?  In my case, I don't think it would matter.

Exactly.  The majority of qsort implementations are not the most memory
efficient in the situation of large lists.  For a list of 2,000, it
doesn't matter.  For a list of 20,000, it starts to hurt.  On the other
hand, a list of 20,000 is where it could also do a lot of good, on a
sendmail platform...

--Loki
  loki@maison-otaku.net / jeremy@lith.com / loki@lithtech.com


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 16:25:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA17030; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA17023 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA01981;
	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:12:08 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990309175721.03b703f0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 17:57:21 -0500
To: Jeremy Blackman <loki@maison-otaku.net>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990309123244.2342n-100000@godai.maison-otaku
 .net>
References: <3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 12:35 PM 3/9/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
>> >* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
>> >  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
>> 
>> Why is it ever bad?  Because the sort for large lists represents a memory
>> usage bubble?  In my case, I don't think it would matter.
>
>Exactly.  The majority of qsort implementations are not the most memory
>efficient in the situation of large lists.  For a list of 2,000, it
>doesn't matter.  For a list of 20,000, it starts to hurt.  On the other
>hand, a list of 20,000 is where it could also do a lot of good, on a
>sendmail platform...

Why not do a merge/bubble sort into the sorted list during the subscribe
operation and then just use the pre-sorted list when a posting happens?
--
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 16:39:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA17201; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:28:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA17194 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA09902;
	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:28:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA09472;
	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:29:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14802;
	Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:29:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:29:17 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: Alan Deikman <Alan.Deikman@znyx.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Light bulb joke (repeats again)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990308114651.00b499a4@znyx.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903091921260.14563-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Alan Deikman wrote:

> I didn't write this, but it is painful how close this
> is to actual experience.

This joke happens to be several years old.  It was good the
first time I saw it.  Unfortunately, it has been posted to the
List-Managers mailing list about 5 times in as many weeks.  I am
curious.  What inspired you to post this here?  Is this your first
post?  Have you read the list for any length of time?

It's hard to avoid beating you up a bit about this...  Your post is a
classic newbie type post.  One would hope that you have spent a little
time on the net prior to deciding to run a mailing list.


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar  9 19:54:57 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA19291; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from praline.no.neosoft.com (praline.no.NeoSoft.COM [206.27.160.253]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id TAA19284 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 19:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9374 invoked by uid 10086); 10 Mar 1999 03:44:00 -0000
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:44:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Ray Jones <rayjones@praline.no.neosoft.com>
cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Light bulb joke
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19990308114651.00b499a4@znyx.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.990309214107.8258I-100000@praline.no.neosoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Alan Deikman wrote:

It would be nice if the list would "trap" the message referred to in the
subject line. We've only seen it here about 500 times not to mention the
number of times it has appeared elsewhere. 

It was old by the second time I saw it and that was years and years ago.


--
Regards,

"Big Ray the Cab Driver" Jones - Licensed Tour Guide    ICQ UIN  1473313
      Author of "The Complete Idiot's Travel Guide to New Orleans"
                           ISBN 0-02-862303-7

Disseminating info about New Orleans & Louisiana via my web page at
	   http://www.neosoft.com/~rayjones/welcome.html

or you can join "Big Ray's" New Orleans Mailing List by sending:
	subscribe noml		To: majordomo@communique.net


	/"\
        \ /
         X  ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML Usenet posts and e-mail
        / \                                                


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 10 08:21:27 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA29554; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 07:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sws5.ctd.ornl.gov (sws5.ctd.ornl.gov [128.219.128.125]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA29547 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 07:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 2046239 invoked by uid 3995); 10 Mar 1999 16:00:07 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <14054.38662.970911.861573@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 11:00:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Dave Sill <de5-list-managers@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku
 .net>
	<3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1>
X-Mailer: VM 6.53 under 21.0 "Norwegian" XEmacs Lucid
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
X-Face: "p~Q]mg{;e*}YR|)&Q/&Q\*~5UWfZX34;5M<gHyq0KvGt<$qi6=B7;$3~1p?Jc7-g?1vPVAc%YX$E6]%1jvk:,"f*jA|?~Cxb?WJ5gt}L?qsMAjROM~rHbK27yx=t,L/?IHb8@|cYg8"Y)~0IpU~J.^w,VW)u?M3q-AS{f`@RZ]Wll
X-Disclaimer: My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my employer
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
>At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:

>>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
>>  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
>>  isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
>>  memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
>>  sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
>>  installations, which do their own queue optimization.
>
>Why is it ever bad?

I've got my busiest lists sorted by average delivery time: users on
more responsive systems get delivered to sooner than users on slower
systems.

-Dave

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 10 14:55:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA04354; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA04344 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 14:11:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webterminator13.crystaltech.com ([208.194.87.78]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA09218 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 05:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs304708-a (24.66.10.229[24.66.10.229])by WEBTERMINATOR13(MailMax 2.031) with ESMTP id 0 for karenlopez@infoadvisors.com; Tue, 09 Mar 1999 07:07:53 -0700 
Reply-To: <karenlopez@infoadvisors.com>
From: "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." <KarenLopez@infoadvisors.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: RE: List-Managers-Digest V8 #58
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:59:03 -0500
Message-ID: <003e01be6a34$fd9b2740$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-reply-to: <199903090900.BAA03449@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

<snip>
This is all true, but there are two approaches to solving this
problem:

    1) the subject-munging hack (which has various negative
       consequences, as has already been discussed), and

    2) educating users about mail filtering, creating
       documentation to help them understand the filtering
       features of various popular MUAs (and gently nudging
       them towards MUAs that get this stuff right.)
<unsnip>

I've read this approach a couple of times now and I just have to jump
in with my  2 cents (Canadian, so they're really on worth about 1.3
cents US).

There shouldn't be a universal answer to the "how do you configure
your list".  My work takes me to many clients sites during the year
and I get to see how various systems architects/administrators have
configured their systems for their users.  I'm talking about sites
that have 5000 users who are forced to live with MUA, filter, SMTP,
network, PC, and other standards over which they have no control, no
say, and no input. My lists target employees and contractors at these
sites and I know it would be ridiculous for me to say to these
s*bscribers "Hey, get a new mail client".  They would love to have a
client that allows filtering, header manipulation, sorting, etc.  They
just can't do it.  At many large companies systems folks have locked
down PCs so that users cannot add software and some can't even change
the colours on their screens.  Forget about changing e-mail clients
there. So for *my* lists, I work towards helping them deal with the 50
or so e-mails they get each week.  If that means subject-munging, then
so be it.  Other lists I have I don't do it.  I'm not sure that all of
you are aware that this happens in these larger companies - and my
experience shows that the larger the company, the more standardized
they are.

So telling them to get a real e-mail client is the same as telling
them "switch employers or get off the list."

I guess it all comes down to who your "customers" are and how much you
are willing to "spend" to help them stay customers.  I use my lists as
a way of getting my company name in potential clients brains, so I'm
more motivated to provide extra services. YMMV.

Karen
_______________________________________________
Karen Lopez, I.S.P.
http://www.infoadvisors.com - home of the IRM Bookstore,
where 100% of the proceeds go to IT-related
non-profit and charitable organizations




From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 11 11:08:13 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA19690; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA19681 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jupiter.mcs.net (dattier@Jupiter.mcs.net [192.160.127.88]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id NAA12593 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:04:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Jupiter.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id NAA70327 for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:04:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@Mcs.Net>
Message-Id: <199903111904.NAA70327@Jupiter.mcs.net>
Subject: subject tagging or not
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:04:54 -0600 (CST)
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <003e01be6a34$fd9b2740$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com> from "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." at Mar 9, 99 08:59:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Karen Lopez wrote,

| There shouldn't be a universal answer to the "how do you configure
| your list".  My work takes me to many clients sites during the year
| and I get to see how various systems architects/administrators have
| configured their systems for their users.  I'm talking about sites
| that have 5000 users who are forced to live with MUA, filter, SMTP,
| network, PC, and other standards over which they have no control, no
| say, and no input. ... They would love to have a
| client that allows filtering, header manipulation, sorting, etc.  They
| just can't do it.  ...  If that means subject-munging, then
| so be it.  Other lists I have I don't do it.

| I guess it all comes down to who your "customers" are and how much you
| are willing to "spend" to help them stay customers.

All the more reason that subject tags should be the subscriber's personal
choice, not the list manager's imposition.  I offer it as an option; of
course, everyone who has ever wanted them has asked me to impose them on
everyone, but when I've told them that they can have tags but I'm not going
to force them on anyone else, none have argued with me and they've all been
content to have it on their own copies.  I did, though, have to haggle with
those who first suggested it not for it to be optional rather than mandatory
but also for them to accept a four-charcter tag instead of the eleven-char-
acter behemoth that they proposed.


From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 12 12:27:00 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA08783; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:16:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA08771 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 12:16:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA16210 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patroon ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id GAA16584; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 06:31:28 -0700 (MST)
From: "Tom Neff" <tneff@panix.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client'
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 08:32:01 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGMEEICBAA.tneff@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
In-Reply-To: <199903110900.BAA11149@honor.greatcircle.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Karen Lopez <KarenLopez@infoadvisors.com> finally speaks the truth:
> ... My work takes me to many clients sites during the year
> and I get to see how various systems architects/administrators have
> configured their systems for their users.  I'm talking about sites
> that have 5000 users who are forced to live with MUA, filter, SMTP,
> network, PC, and other standards over which they have no control, no
> say, and no input. My lists target employees and contractors at these
> sites and I know it would be ridiculous for me to say to these
> s*bscribers "Hey, get a new mail client".  They would love to have a
> client that allows filtering, header manipulation, sorting, etc.  They
> just can't do it.

This is the same philosophy that drove the development of LISTSERV fourteen
years ago, which is very probably the biggest reason we still have them
around today to discuss maintaining here.  Letting all users share
information, even (and SPECIFICALLY) including users stuck in less-than-cool
hardware and software environments over which they have little or no
control, was the highest priority.

Unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that just as some
users cannot change their mail agent, some administrators cannot grasp or
agree with this egalitarian principle, and will always give you the "well,
the idiots should get a real mailer [as defined this month] or they don't
deserve my list" argument.

Those folks will always be around, and so will those who think like Karen
and me, so the best we can do is to stay focused and not get distracted by
the "get a real mailer" noise when we're working out how to best keep
serving the users.

As for subject munging, I don't really like it on high volume discussion
lists but it can be quite useful on low volume specialty or occasional
lists, where the expectation is that the average member is also on other
lists, and hears from this one relatively infrequently.  So again, it
depends on circumstances.



From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 12 17:07:22 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA12026; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA12019 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA27702
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:05:28 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA02723; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:05:28 -0800
Message-Id: <199903130105.AA02723@waltz.rahul.net>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client' 
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGMEEICBAA.tneff@panix.com> 
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 17:05:27 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Tom wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that just as
> some users cannot change their mail agent, some administrators
> cannot grasp or agree with this egalitarian principle, and will
> always give you the "well, the idiots should get a real mailer [as
> defined this month] or they don't deserve my list" argument.

And yet other adminstrators feel that they should not be obligated to
work for free to solve the problems of people who are not their
customers or benefactors in any way.

Just as not every user can change their mail agent, not every
administrator is getting paid for hosting and running a list.  Some
even put in their own money to do so, never seeing, nor desiring a
cent in return.

In my experience, the administrators paid to meet users needs who say
"well, the idiots whould get a real mailer or they don't deserve my
list" are as common as non-customer end users whose enjoyment the
charity of others causes them to believe that the adminstrators of
that charity owe it to them to cater to their every desire [of the
day].

> Those folks will always be around, and so will those who think like
> Karen and me, so the best we can do is to stay focused and not get
> distractedby the "get a real mailer" noise when we're working out
> how to best keep serving the users.

Interesting, I thought Karen's message was very fair and even-handed.
She seemed aware that just as not every user is in the same situation,
neither is every list owner (which is why she detailed her situation
and how it was special).  I wonder if she is comfortable being grouped
with you and your characterization of list-owners who have different
opinions than yours?

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 12 18:23:28 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA12877; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA12870 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 18:17:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24766
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 21:19:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <19990312211950.A24332@gsp.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 21:19:50 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client'
References: <199903110900.BAA11149@honor.greatcircle.com> <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGMEEICBAA.tneff@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIFDBOJMGBJABJOHGMEEICBAA.tneff@panix.com>; from Tom Neff on Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 08:32:01AM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Tom Neff wrote:
> Unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that just as some
> users cannot change their mail agent, some administrators cannot grasp or
> agree with this egalitarian principle, and will always give you the "well,
> the idiots should get a real mailer [as defined this month] or they don't
> deserve my list" argument.

Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
own needs.  It is most emphatically *not* the responsibility of the
list admin to do this for them, or to go to great lengths to accomodate
them if they choose not to.  The responsibility of the list admin is to
provide a service that matches the description of the service, to do so
in as standards-compliant a manner as possible, and to attend to issues
such as resource consumption/abuse/etc. in a timely manner.

There is nothing un-egalitarian about this: there is, however, I think
something vaguely Orwellian and insidious about penalizing the clueful and
suitably-equipped subscribers in order to provide for the needs of the
selfish few who insist on using inadequate tools to handle their mail.
(Vonnegut's Handicapper General comes to mind as well.)  I would hazard
the guess that most of those who are stuck with obsolete/broken tools such
as All-In-1 and Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange at work could choose 
to pay for Internet access at home and thus avoid the problem entirely.

I suppose in part this comes down to a philosophical issue: there
are people who are ready, willing and able to accomodate problem users.
This is exceedingly generous of them, and I salute both their good
intentions and their efforts.  However, this does not create a sense
of obligation in me: while I have a great deal of compassion for those
who are less fortunate and cannot help their personal situation,
I have little for those who are able to help themselves, but choose
not to and expect (or even demand!) that I do it for them.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 00:10:43 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA01772; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id AAA01762 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA12507 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 17:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id TAA18827 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:58:57 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199903130158.TAA18827@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: subject tagging or not
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 19:59:20 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On 3/11/99 1:04 PM, David W. Tamkin <dattier@Mcs.Net> wrote...

>All the more reason that subject tags should be the subscriber's personal
>choice, not the list manager's imposition.

I don't see any other way to do it. A mailing list management package 
which supports subject tags but doesn't allow their appearance to be set 
on a per-subscriber basis is broken.


-- 
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
adamkb@aol.com |  confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/



From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 00:23:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA01707; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id AAA01697 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 00:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webterminator13.crystaltech.com ([208.194.87.78]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA05363 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 07:19:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs304708-a (24.66.10.229[24.66.10.229])by WEBTERMINATOR13(MailMax 2.031) with ESMTP id 0 for karenlopez@infoadvisors.com; Fri, 12 Mar 1999 08:29:47 -0700 
Reply-To: <karenlopez@infoadvisors.com>
From: "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." <KarenLopez@infoadvisors.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re:subject tagging or not
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:20:42 -0500
Message-ID: <002501be6c9b$e4cb1e00$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199903120900.BAA28819@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

>All the more reason that subject tags should be the subscriber's
personal
choice, not the list manager's imposition.
<

Again, my point was not about the tagging, it was about trying to
convince a s*bscriber to switch mail clients or browser or any other
desktop software.




From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 05:41:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA07207; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 05:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.vnet.net (smtp2.vnet.net [166.82.1.32]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA07200 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 05:31:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp2.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA04330;
	Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:33:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA17396;
	Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:33:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17038;
	Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:33:57 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:33:57 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: subject tagging or not
In-Reply-To: <199903130158.TAA18827@mail.xnet.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903140827420.16531-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Adam Bailey wrote:

> I don't see any other way to do it. A mailing list management
> package which supports subject tags but doesn't allow their
> appearance to be set on a per-subscriber basis is broken.

While I agree that a subject tag should be a user option, I disagree
that this should be a required feature.  There are dozens of DESIRABLE
features for mailing list servers.  Only a few features are absolutely
necessary.  If a nifty feature comes along and you'd like to use it
and promote it, fine.  Declaring that any server which doesn't use
that latest features is broken, is a bit extreme.


- murr -


From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 11:43:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11218; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:22:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA11207 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA24189 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id LAA20626 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:53:53 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199903131753.LAA20626@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client'
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:54:17 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On 3/12/99 8:19 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote...

>On Thu, Mar 11, 1999 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Tom Neff wrote:
>> Unfortunately, it's been my experience over the years that just as some
>> users cannot change their mail agent, some administrators cannot grasp or
>> agree with this egalitarian principle, and will always give you the "well,
>> the idiots should get a real mailer [as defined this month] or they don't
>> deserve my list" argument.
>
>Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
>has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
>that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
>own needs. 

It's not even a matter of that. There are plenty of mailers which do not 
violate standards that have a small RAM footprint. In fact, your argument 
rather mirrors those who say it's okay to use HTML in email.

Only in a corporate setting can somoene truly say they have no choice. 
Unfortunately, that's often where the offenders are.


-- 
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
adamkb@aol.com |  confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/



From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 11:57:31 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA11151; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA11114 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:22:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webterminator13.crystaltech.com ([208.194.87.78]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA23503 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 08:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs304708-a (24.66.10.229[24.66.10.229])by WEBTERMINATOR13(MailMax 2.031) with ESMTP id 0 for karenlopez@infoadvisors.com; Sat, 13 Mar 1999 09:32:18 -0700 
Reply-To: <karenlopez@infoadvisors.com>
From: "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." <KarenLopez@infoadvisors.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: no universal system, no 'get a real client
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:24:03 -0500
Message-ID: <004e01be6d6d$e86be300$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
In-Reply-To: <199903130900.BAA16678@honor.greatcircle.com>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Rich wrote:
>I see nothing wrong with insisting that subscribers avail themselves
of suitable resources to serve their own needs.
<

I would hope that your statement has an implied "for my lists".  The
point of my original post is that it is up to each list
owner/administrator to analyze his/her objectives for hosting a list,
target "customer", fee structure, and desired outcomes to determine
how s/he runs a list.

In my case, my goal is to get my domain (company) name in front of as
many database and architecture professionals as possible.  My target
customer is an IT professional in a shop with an IT budget in the tens
of millions of dollars.  This target audience frequently leads to
shops that have very specific and closed standards for what e-mail
clients a subscriber can use.  For instance, one client of mine, for
whatever reason, is still stuck in a Windows 3.1, very old cc:Mail
environment.  They are forbidden from using any other client on a
company machine.  Another shop forbids attachments.  Yet another
forbids e-mails with the word "list" in the address line or header.
Another forbids e-mails with more than 10 recipients.

I could do all the nudging, pleading, and demanding that I wanted to,
but they will not be able to change.  I have made a decision based on
cost, benefit, and risk to not exclude them from my lists or to
implement features that might automatically exclude them.  Do I think
their shop standards are crazy? Yes!  Do I want to exclude them? No.
Do I want them to have to s*bscribe from a free account from home? No,
I want my message right there in front of them at work, where their
demand for services exists.  Other list administrators may take a
different approach because they have different goals and outcomes.

My lists are no charge to the s*bscriber.  Yes, it costs me dearly in
time, mostly, to run these lists.  But just one "sale" down the road
can recover my costs, tenfold.

OTOH, Michelle's lists are directed to individuals with a common
interest related to food and recipes.  In general, I would imagine her
goal for the lists was not to make money from subscribers, but to
provide a method for sharing information about a specific food diet
(not dieting, per se). I'd guess she started this because there
weren't any lists out there to do so.  So now she has added revenue
streams to her site that help her offset the costs for providing the
service, as she has no expectation of generating "sales" from these
members directly.

On the one hobby list (It's A Wonderful Life List), I take a
completely different approach to moderation because 1) I don't have
any direct monetary gain from it. 2) I administer the list because no
one else wants to. 3) Most of my users are not constrained by
corporate or other external standards. 4) Most are actually willing to
read the FAQ and instructions.

Again, my point was not to comment on the specific original topic,
subject line munging, but to comment on the ability of s*bscribers to
change software or settings on a whim.  I just wanted to make sure
that we addressed the issue of client changes, not to defend the
standards being set by these corporate administrators.

Karen
ListMistress to Way Too Many Lists for the Time Available to Me.





From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 12:44:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA11977; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:26:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server.postmodern.com (server.postmodern.com [209.157.82.3]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA11970 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postmodern.com (foucault.postmodern.com [209.157.82.5]) by server.postmodern.com (8.8.5/mcb-980201) with ESMTP id MAA04920; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:28:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <36EC1C00.2367CDE1@postmodern.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 12:34:11 -0800
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@postmodern.com>
Reply-To: mcb@postmodern.com
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, California USA
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client
References: <004e01be6d6d$e86be300$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk



"Karen Lopez, I.S.P." wrote:
> [...]
> In my case, my goal is to get my domain (company) name in front of as
> many database and architecture professionals as possible.  My target
> customer is an IT professional in a shop with an IT budget in the tens
> of millions of dollars.  This target audience frequently leads to
> shops that have very specific and closed standards for what e-mail
> clients a subscriber can use.  For instance, one client of mine, for
> whatever reason, is still stuck in a Windows 3.1, very old cc:Mail
> environment.  They are forbidden from using any other client on a
> company machine.  Another shop forbids attachments.  Yet another
> forbids e-mails with the word "list" in the address line or header.
> Another forbids e-mails with more than 10 recipients.
> 
> I could do all the nudging, pleading, and demanding that I wanted to,
> but they will not be able to change.  I have made a decision based on
> cost, benefit, and risk to not exclude them from my lists or to
> implement features that might automatically exclude them.  

I have this situation come up a number of times, most frequently with
subscribers at government sites.  Since practically everyone -- even in 
Stone-Age IT shops -- has Web access these days, albeit via a firewall,
proxy, external service, etc., I have had a lot of success in persuading
people to use a Web-based mail service like HotMail, Yahoo mail, or
Netscape Netcenter. And that way they will have the message right there
at work, too. 

These people don't *want* to be in the Stone Age, since they can't get
personal mail with attachments or whatever, so the Web-based mail
services have been very popular.  I like them too, since even though
HotMail sometimes has a bad day and eats its babies, delivery to the big
Web mailers is usually much smoother than to the Stone Age shops.  (For
example, I had a reader at a certain government agency which shall
remain nameless -- suffice it to say you might associate their name with
"April 15th" -- whose mail started bouncing with regularity on Friday
afternoons.  Apparently the sysadmin or whatever passes for talent there
would turn off the incoming mail server when he or she left for the
weekend, because after all, there was nobody to receive mail over the
weekend, right?  D'oh!!!)

HotMail can be your friend in this sort of case.

-- 
Michael C. Berch
mcb@greatcircle.com / mcb@postmodern.com

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 14:57:47 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA13449; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:37:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA13440 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14436
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:40:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:40:07 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client'
Message-ID: <19990314174007.A14361@gsp.org>
References: <199903131753.LAA20626@mail.xnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <199903131753.LAA20626@mail.xnet.com>; from Adam Bailey on Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 11:54:17AM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 11:54:17AM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> It's not even a matter of that. There are plenty of mailers which do not 
> violate standards that have a small RAM footprint. In fact, your argument 
> rather mirrors those who say it's okay to use HTML in email.

I think you've missed my point - and by the way, no, I *don't* think
my argument mirrors that of those who want to use HTML in email.

My point is screamingly simple: users who sign up for high-volume
mailing lists should ensure that they have the resources (whatever
those might be: network bandwidth, RAM, client software, etc.) to
deal with that.  It's our responsibility as list managers to tell
them up front what they're getting in for, so that they can make
a responsible and informed decision about whether to sign up or not;
but it is not our responsibility to solve their problems if they
make the wrong decision.

Further, it's each end-user's responsibility to figure out that if they
sign up for, say, 100 mailing lists, that they ought to have the
resources on hand to cope with that without demanding that 100
list admins change their way of doing things to accomodate them.

This is not to say that list managers can't choose to accomodate
these sorts of users -- some have and will decide to try to assist
these users, for varying reasons.  In Karen's case, it's in part
because she feels that the return for her efforts could greatly
outweight the cost of those efforts.  That's fine.  

However, the fact that she's going "above and beyond" does not create
in me any sense of obligation to do the same.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 14 16:13:46 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA14308; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:56:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA14301 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 15:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmd.vnet.net (lmd.vnet.net [166.82.1.41])
	by smtp1.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23158
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:58:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from katie.vnet.net (katie.vnet.net [166.82.1.7])
	by lmd.vnet.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA27512
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:58:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (murr@localhost)
	by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA26305
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:58:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:58:52 -0500 (EST)
From: murr rhame <murr@vnet.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: no universal system, no 'get a real client
In-Reply-To: <004e01be6d6d$e86be300$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9903141842470.25386-100000@katie.vnet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Karen Lopez, I.S.P. wrote:

> I would hope that your statement has an implied "for my lists". ...

We could save a lot of ink if everyone on this list would assume an
implied "for my lists" whenever someone states a preference or
opinion.  Then again, we wouldn't have much to discuss.  The most
interesting aspect of this list is learning hows and whys of other
mailing lists.  Otherwise, we would never learn anything new.

Personally, I don't go to extraordinary lengths to deliver email.  At
any given moment, a small percentage of the mailboxes on the net can
not be reached for one reason or another.  You can not force someone
to accept email.  If someone has a problem and asks for help, I'll try
to accommodate them.  As a rule, I'm not going to bend over backwards
for a subscriber who has quirky requirements for in-bound mail.


- murr -



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 10:57:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27955; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from claude.akamai.com (access.akamai.com [4.17.143.9]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA27948 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:08:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dshaw@localhost)
	by claude.akamai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA05546
	for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:25:10 -0500
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:25:09 -0500
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Introduction / Questions
Message-ID: <19990314222509.A5505@jabberwocky.com>
Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990306203212.2342s-100000@godai.maison-otaku <3.0.5.32.19990309145216.03a1cda0@127.0.0.1> <14054.38662.970911.861573@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <14054.38662.970911.861573@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>; from Dave Sill on Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 11:00:06AM -0500
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CB3B415/2048/4D 96 83 18 2B AF BE 45 D0 07 C4 07 51 37 B3 18
X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/
X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Crescent (9% of Full)
X-Current-Email-Backlog: 231
X-Pointless-Random-Number: 215
X-Silly-Header: It sure is.
X-Time-Til-Y2K: 41 weeks, 5 days, 1 hours, 43 minutes, 49 seconds
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 11:00:06AM -0500, Dave Sill wrote:
> Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> wrote:
> >At 09:06 PM 3/6/99 -0800, Jeremy Blackman wrote:
> 
> >>* Built-in sorting on domain, for the outgoing user list.  A good thing,
> >>  or a bad thing?  It tends to REALLY improve sendmail's performance, but
> >>  isn't that useful for qmail or Postfix.  It also tends to be less
> >>  memory-efficient.  My opinion is that it should be an option (since
> >>  sendmail IS fairly common), but disable-able for qmail and Postfix
> >>  installations, which do their own queue optimization.
> >
> >Why is it ever bad?
> 
> I've got my busiest lists sorted by average delivery time: users on
> more responsive systems get delivered to sooner than users on slower
> systems.

This makes sense.  Barring the ability to do multiple simultaneous
deliveries (i.e. Exim, Postfix, and qmail), you want to put the slow
people very low in the list or they'll slow down everyone after them.  I
did some tests a few years ago with a two-pass delivery system - the first
pass would try to deliver with a very low timeout - if the MTA couldn't
deliver in a few seconds, queue the message and go on.  Later, the second
pass (using a longer timeout) would catch the rest of the messages.

It worked fairly well - the fast users stayed fast, and the slow
users only hurt themselves.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw@jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 12:38:46 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA29467; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:59:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA29459 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:59:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA07978 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 07:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10171
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:05:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:05:40 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: subject tagging or not
Message-ID: <19990314100540.A10054@gsp.org>
References: <199903130158.TAA18827@mail.xnet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <199903130158.TAA18827@mail.xnet.com>; from Adam Bailey on Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 07:59:20PM -0600
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 12, 1999 at 07:59:20PM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> I don't see any other way to do it. A mailing list management package 
> which supports subject tags but doesn't allow their appearance to be set 
> on a per-subscriber basis is broken.

I very much agree with this point: in fact, the ability to allow individual
users to set not only the appearance of such tags, but to toggle their
presence, would remove my objections to the use of these tags.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 12:41:55 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29578; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA29555 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:00:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.xnet.com (quake.xnet.com [198.147.221.35]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA09162 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:19:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.1] (adamb.xnet.com [205.243.156.212]) by mail.xnet.com (8.8.6/XNet-3.0R) with SMTP id LAA08837 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:21:36 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199903141721.LAA08837@mail.xnet.com>
Subject: Re: subject tagging or not
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:22:01 -0600
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Adam Bailey <adamb@lull.org>
cc: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On 3/14/99 7:33 AM, murr rhame <murr@vnet.net> wrote...

>On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Adam Bailey wrote:
>
>> I don't see any other way to do it. A mailing list management
>> package which supports subject tags but doesn't allow their
>> appearance to be set on a per-subscriber basis is broken.
>
>While I agree that a subject tag should be a user option, I disagree
>that this should be a required feature.

I agree. I never suggested that it should be required.


-- 
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
adamb@lull.org | "Logic is the art of going wrong with
adamkb@aol.com |  confidence." - George Bernard Shaw
Finger for PGP | http://www.lull.org/adam/



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 12:55:30 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA29608; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA29595 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:00:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ifolk.iserver.net (ifolk.iserver.net [192.41.44.203]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA09875 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from librarynt ([160.43.47.9]) by ifolk.iserver.net (8.8.5) id LAA06035; Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:32:08 -0700 (MST)
From: "Tom Neff" <tneff@panix.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: no 'get a real client' [kind of long as it turns out]
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 13:31:23 -0500
Message-ID: <NBBBKAAABJCJFPBMGCGFEECCCPAA.tneff@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0)
In-Reply-To: <199903130900.BAA16678@honor.greatcircle.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800
Importance: Normal
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net> wrote:
> And yet other adminstrators feel that they should not be obligated to
> work for free to solve the problems of people who are not their
> customers or benefactors in any way.
>
> Just as not every user can change their mail agent, not every
> administrator is getting paid for hosting and running a list.  Some
> even put in their own money to do so, never seeing, nor desiring a
> cent in return.

Almost nobody is paid to run lists, or paid enough to justify the portion of
their workday thus consumed.  We are all doing someone a favor.  That's why we
put our heads together here to work smarter at (and occasionally commiserate
about) the job.  "Get a real mailer" is not coping with the issues, but copping
out.  In the end, this serves no one, including the GARM crowd.

> Interesting, I thought Karen's message was very fair and even-handed.
> She seemed aware that just as not every user is in the same situation,
> neither is every list owner (which is why she detailed her situation
> and how it was special).  I wonder if she is comfortable being grouped
> with you and your characterization of list-owners who have different
> opinions than yours?

Let her worry about that.  The truthfulness of my remarks does not depend on her
willingness to associate with them, nor hers with mine.

We all have to arrive at our own compromises in list administration, based on
the size and composition of each list, its special subject matter (if any), and
our own abilities and resources as admins.  Two principles should guide us in
that process:

 1. Whenever it is possible to make a choice in favor of greater tolerance of
mail clients, broader participation by more users with less control over their
environments, etc, we say yes.  (This is the founding principle of LISTSERV.)
Pure discussion lists should never have arbitrary client restrictions imposed.

 2. When it is INTRINSICALLY necessary to require special client capabilities on
a list, e.g. because it exists to distribute stereotaxograms, or it is in
Chinese, or it is encrypted in a special way, or the list host only speaks
EBCDIC, etc, then a comprehensive resource FTP directory/Web page explaining,
containing and/or linking to all the necessary software, should be available as
a companion resource, described or included in the Welcome and FAQ files, and
periodically reminded on the list itself.

Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
> has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
> that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
> own needs.

The problem is that we as list admins are in no position to say what "their own
needs" are, either in the context of our own lists (where a majority of members
may feel no "own need" to sit through a download of a 175K WAV file of someone
saying "Hello everyone!," and in fact may vociferously object, though hopefully
not with their own WAV files) or - MOST IMPORTANTLY - in the context of other
lists or mail networks to which our members may belong.  We are all little
tinpot autocrats of our email worlds and it is easy to assume that our members'
email lives revolve around us; but it is not so.  I have any number of people on
my lists who *have* to use Mailer X, not only because their PC support
department dictates it, but because it supports their online meeting facility or
company bulletins or whatever.  They will not switch to UberMailer ZZ no matter
how persuasively I sell it, or how many List-Manager digests full of "get a real
mailer" pronunciamentos I show them.  And yet, they are as full and valuable a
member of their discussion lists as any overeducated beta-tester cable-modem
cybergeek in the roster.  I cannot wash my hands of them because they "choose
not to" quit their jobs and work somewhere else in order to be able to discuss
Chaucer with a mail client of my particular liking - or to keep and use three
mailers to satisfy the *differing* whims of three separate know-it-all
listadmins.

> The responsibility of the list admin is to
> provide a service that matches the description of the service, to do so
> in as standards-compliant a manner as possible, and to attend to issues
> such as resource consumption/abuse/etc. in a timely manner.

Michelle Dick points out that most of us don't get paid to do this.  If we did
get paid, our "responsibility" would be to do what our supervisors told us to
do, whether it matched Rich's description and complied with standards, or it was
totally at odds with his description and trashed the standards, or whatever.
Since we do not get paid, our "responsibility" is whatever we reasonably
construe it to be.  Rich offers one such construction and I another.

I claim that we have not just a responsibility, but an incentive to put the user
FIRST, and our personal, ephemeral software enthusiasms second; to avoid the
easy temptation to target our list support at the level of supposedly "clueful"
users who can actually take care of themselves without our help; and to recruit
such assistance as we need to do the work, rather than doing too much ourselves
and taking it out on the users.  The incentive is longevity.

> There is nothing un-egalitarian about this: there is, however, I think
> something vaguely Orwellian and insidious about penalizing the clueful and
> suitably-equipped subscribers in order to provide for the needs of the
> selfish few who insist on using inadequate tools to handle their mail.

Just personally, where discussion lists are concerned, I think this is
bullshit - people who imagine they HAVE to be able to use rotating blinking pink
Playbill drop caps to talk about the new Cessna cockpit design are a lot less
"clueful" than the term implies.  By all means go ahead and create a Cessna list
where RTF/MIME/HTML software is required - making sure you put that requirement
prominently in the list's Description and INFO files as a prerequisite for
membership - and best of luck; we'll compare notes in five years - that is, if
your list is still around - and see if you haven't been fighting the same stupid
battle anyway, over 3-D smellovision includes or something. :)  But don't
pretend to publish a GENERAL list for Cessna discussion - one where special
software is NOT listed as a prerequisite for joining - and then sit around
browbeating supposedly "clueless" users after the fact for not having "real"
mailers.  And, I might add, don't be surprised if some low-tech Cessna listserv
that predated your whizbang list by seven years also outlives it and "keeps on
ticking" by being TTC:

	Text-centered,
	Topic-centered and
	Collaborative.

> ...  I would hazard
> the guess that most of those who are stuck with obsolete/broken tools such
> as All-In-1 and Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange at work could choose
> to pay for Internet access at home and thus avoid the problem entirely.

Only for leisure time topics.  I have seen estimates that as many as one-half of
all mailing lists out there are set up for business communication.  Imagine, for
a moment, a discussion list set up for tech support on some brand of PBX phone
system. They are going to be subject to every cross-company and "clueless user"
headache and challenge we have ever discussed here, but they are NOT going to
have the luxury of saying "Well, I don't get paid to take care of idiots."  They
probably STILL don't get paid to run the list per se - it was the brainchild of
a "clueful" customer support manager who wanted to harness the Net for better
results - so in a sense it is every bit as much of a thankless "favor" as the
fellow who runs the Bluegrass Lovers list is doing.  Only these members are
customers.  They don't CARE if the fellow at the PBX company really loves XML or
hates Exchange - that's not his role in their lives.

> I suppose in part this comes down to a philosophical issue: there
> are people who are ready, willing and able to accomodate problem users.
> This is exceedingly generous of them...

And then there are those can take perfectly ordinary, intelligent and
enthusiastic list members who, for reasons ranging from ironclad company policy
to download-time economy to personal visual preference, happen to use plain text
mailers, and label them "problem users."  That is not my definition of a problem
user, nor (I suspect) is it the definition most of us arrive at after a few
years of adminning.  None of us have much time or patience for real problem
users, and it is not our obligation or responsibility (under ANY of these
models) to babysit their neurotic antics.  ACCOMODATING PLAIN TEXT READERS
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED HAZARD DUTY ON DISCUSSION LISTS - EVER.

Rather than argue the issue forever, I look forward to finding and developing
more tools that will allow the LISTSERV principle to survive for many more
years.



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 16:46:22 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA02656; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:28:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bolero-x.rahul.net (bolero.rahul.net [192.160.13.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id QAA02647 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waltz.rahul.net by bolero-x.rahul.net with SMTP id AA09833
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>); Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:30:36 -0800
Received: by waltz.rahul.net (5.67b8/jive-a2i-1.0)
	id AA00376; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:30:34 -0800
Message-Id: <199903160030.AA00376@waltz.rahul.net>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: no 'get a real client' [kind of long as it turns out] 
In-Reply-To: <NBBBKAAABJCJFPBMGCGFEECCCPAA.tneff@panix.com> 
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 99 16:30:34 -0800
From: Michelle Dick <artemis@rahul.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Tom wrote:
>  "Get a real mailer" is not coping with the issues

Sure it is.  I've never had any of my 2000 list members ask for
tagging, but at this point in time, the economics of the list do not
permit me to run software that would provide it (can't afford it) and
while I could provide universal tagging, it would annoy the majority
of other list members to do so.  Thus, telling a member who asked for
it this and advising them on mailers that would help with their
problem (i.e. "get a real mailer", but in nicer words), is most
definately copping with the issues.

Not copping with the issues is ignoring the fact that economics and
particular situations do not allow all list managers to serve the ever
changing needs of a diverse public.

>(This is the founding principle of LISTSERV.)

Interesting you again mention listserv.  It is very, very expensive,
far out of range of most non-paid, non-commercial, large list, list
managers.  Especially, say, if I wanted it for my 2000-member list,
with bounce handling (I have bounce handling already with smartlist
and could not afford the time to do it manually).  How many thousands
of dollars does it cost these days?  Just curious, I notice that Lsoft
doesn't list pricing for the full model on their pages.  Personally I
think the Lyris product looks awfully good and if it were free or even
a just a hundred or two, I'd grab it in an instant (after it was
available for linux, that is).  I've nothing against either of them
charging for their product, just as I am not required to work for free
or give money away, neither are they.

> Pure discussion lists should never have arbitrary client
> restrictions im posed.

Ah, we've uncovered the strawman.  Those of use who would advise a
requesting list member on how they can handle their mail without
tagging (GARM, to you) do so for non-arbitrary reasons.  Chiefly among
them:

1. We can't afford software and computer resources to provide
individual-level tagging options.  Or we can't afford our time in
changing the software or programming in the ability.

2. The only economically feasible option is universal tagging and we
don't want to impose it on all members.

3. Our list is run on a commercial site that doesn't allow that option
and just as the list member who can't change their mailer, we are
list-manager who can't change their list software.

There are things a list manager is ethically required to do no matter
what the cost in time, money, and inconvenience.  If they can't they
should not run the list.  Examples are: honoring proper unsubscribe
requests in a timely manner and not sending mailings unsolicited.
There are others.  However, individualized tagging options, or other
changing whims of individual members of the public are not among those
things that a list manager is ethically required to provide no matter
what the cost in time and money.

--
Michelle Dick       artemis@rahul.net       East Palo Alto, CA
          Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 17:45:05 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA03304; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:22:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm2.deskmedia.com (dm2.deskmedia.com [199.199.147.31]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA03295 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dev@localhost)
	by dm2.deskmedia.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA20622
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:25:15 -0600
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:25:15 -0600
From: Lawrence Weeks <dev@dm2.deskmedia.com>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Sender: header
Message-ID: <19990315192515.A20150@dm2.deskmedia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

Is there an RFC relating to the Sender: header, and particularily
relating to its use in messages sent by a mailing list? I used various
RFC search engines, and Altavista, and gave up checking the torrent
of matches after a bit.

Larry
-- 
Lawrence Weeks      "Audaces fortuna juvat."      dev@deskmedia.com

From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 19:10:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA04127; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from neuman.interaccess.com (neuman.interaccess.com [207.70.126.130]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA04120 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from worldwidebaby.com (d65.focal4.interaccess.com [207.208.139.65])
	by neuman.interaccess.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA05643
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:45:47 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <36EDC58E.2CBD12D9@worldwidebaby.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:44:30 -0600
From: Julie Keywell <jkeywell@worldwidebaby.com>
Reply-To: jkeywell@worldwidebaby.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: email/inclusion
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Hello everyone!

I have been a lurker for quite some time. Thank you for all of your information
and help on so many topics.

I followed the HTML email discussion closely and it was very interesting.
However, most of the conversation discussed bouncing or filtering html email.
We have HUGE lists that we maintain on very specific subjects.  Some advertisers
have asked to advertise on the list because it is a very targeted audience and
our members have responded favorably to this!  The advertiser wants some html in
the footer for tracking purposes.

So, my question is - can anyone help me to understand how to put html in the
footer?  If I place it in the config file, it shows up as the code, and not the
html image that it should.  Do I need some other config to tell the email that
"this is html?"

I would really appreciate any help anyone could give me.

Thanks,
Julie

--

:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Julie Keywell
Webmaster
Pregnancy Today & Babies Today & Preconception.com
http://pregnancytoday.com
http://babiestoday.com
http://preconception.com

webmaster@pregnancytoday.com
ICQ UIN: 29426406
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 15 23:54:52 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA07582; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.12.23]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id XAA07573 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 23:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 9294 invoked by uid 50); 16 Mar 1999 07:39:59 -0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Sender: header
References: <19990315192515.A20150@dm2.deskmedia.com>
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: Lawrence Weeks's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:25:15 -0600"
Date: 15 Mar 1999 23:39:59 -0800
Message-ID: <ylww0hevcg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Lines: 12
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.66/Emacs 19.34
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Lawrence Weeks <dev@dm2.deskmedia.com> writes:

> Is there an RFC relating to the Sender: header, and particularily
> relating to its use in messages sent by a mailing list? I used various
> RFC search engines, and Altavista, and gave up checking the torrent of
> matches after a bit.

RFC 822 talks about it.  The meaning of RFC 822 in this regard is very
hotly disputed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)         <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 16 02:01:57 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA10013; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id BAA10005 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webterminator13.crystaltech.com ([208.194.87.78]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id FAA25139 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 05:28:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs304708-a (24.66.10.229[24.66.10.229])by WEBTERMINATOR13(MailMax 2.031) with ESMTP id 0 for karenlopez@infoadvisors.com; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 06:38:21 -0700 
Reply-To: <karenlopez@infoadvisors.com>
From: "Karen Lopez, I.S.P." <KarenLopez@infoadvisors.com>
To: <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: RE: no universal system, no 'get a real client
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:30:16 -0500
Message-ID: <000101be6ee7$f6889700$e50a4218@cs304708-a.mtwh1.on.wave.home.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Michael C. Berch wrote:

> Since practically everyone -- even in
Stone-Age IT shops -- has Web access these days, albeit via a
firewall,
proxy, external service, etc., I have had a lot of success in
persuading
people to use a Web-based mail service like HotMail, Yahoo mail, or
Netscape Netcenter. And that way they will have the message right
there
at work, too. <

Yes, and I would bet that many of my s*bscribers that have those
addresses are doing just that.  I try to help potential s*bscribers to
get on the list as much as is feasible for me.

One of my current clients right now forbids (but does not block) use
or access to any other e-mail account from work, be it web-based or
not.  Another filters out any site with the words PASSWORD or LOGIN on
the page, anywhere.  Another shop only grants access to the web for
management level and above (what, only the managers have the time to
spare?)  I also have 2 friends who work at 2 different shops with over
1000 IT workers (just my target customer) who have no web access at
all.

I believe management and sysadmins at these places are totally out of
touch with the way technology works in the rest of the world.  I
believe they were probably the same ones that forbid telephones on
worker's desks until just recently and only because they realized it
was cheaper than the 5 operators they needed to take messages.

I do all this assisting and wrangling and hand holding because the
payback is so great: one hour of this can lead to tens of thousands of
dollars in billable time down the road -- and it has happened.

I think we have beat this subject to death.  Any one up for debating
sex, religion, or politics now?

_______________________________________________
Karen Lopez, I.S.P.
http://www.infoadvisors.com - home of the IRM Bookstore,
where 100% of the proceeds go to IT-related
non-profit and charitable organizations




From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 16 02:24:52 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA10749; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 02:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id BAA10165 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 01:36:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from epithumia.math.uh.edu (epithumia.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA05195 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 15 Mar 1999 20:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tibbs@localhost)
	by epithumia.math.uh.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA10548;
	Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:04:20 -0600
To: Lawrence Weeks <dev@dm2.deskmedia.com>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: Sender: header
References: <19990315192515.A20150@dm2.deskmedia.com>
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Date: 15 Mar 1999 22:04:20 -0600
In-Reply-To: Lawrence Weeks's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:25:15 -0600"
Message-ID: <ufa6782krln.fsf@epithumia.math.uh.edu>
Lines: 36
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070065 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.65) Emacs/20.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

>>>>> "LW" == Lawrence Weeks <dev@dm2.deskmedia.com> writes:

LW> Hello, Is there an RFC relating to the Sender: header, and
LW> particularily relating to its use in messages sent by a mailing list?

Well, RFC822 has this to say:

     4.4.1.  FROM / RESENT-FROM

        This field contains the identity of the person(s)  who  wished
        this  message to be sent.  The message-creation process should
        default this field  to  be  a  single,  authenticated  machine
        address,  indicating  the  AGENT  (person,  system or process)
        entering the message.  If this is not done, the "Sender" field
        MUST  be  present.  If the "From" field IS defaulted this way,
        the "Sender" field is  optional  and  is  redundant  with  the
        "From"  field.   In  all  cases, addresses in the "From" field
        must be machine-usable (addr-specs) and may not contain  named
        lists (groups).

     4.4.2.  SENDER / RESENT-SENDER

        This field contains the authenticated identity  of  the  AGENT
        (person,  system  or  process)  that sends the message.  It is
        intended for use when the sender is not the author of the mes-
        sage,  or  to  indicate  who among a group of authors actually
        sent the message.  If the contents of the "Sender" field would
        be  completely  redundant  with  the  "From"  field,  then the
        "Sender" field need not be present and its use is  discouraged
        (though  still legal).  In particular, the "Sender" field MUST
        be present if it is NOT the same as the "From" Field.

There is more; grab a copy of the RFC and dig in.  It's a great way to
spend an evening!

 - J<


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 16 04:55:41 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id EAA14116; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 04:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id EAA14109 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 04:48:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from rsk@localhost)
	by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA10665
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:02:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 07:02:41 -0500
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: no 'get a real client' [kind of long as it turns out]
Message-ID: <19990316070241.A10646@gsp.org>
References: <199903130900.BAA16678@honor.greatcircle.com> <NBBBKAAABJCJFPBMGCGFEECCCPAA.tneff@panix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <NBBBKAAABJCJFPBMGCGFEECCCPAA.tneff@panix.com>; from Tom Neff on Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 01:31:23PM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 01:31:23PM -0500, Tom Neff wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> > Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
> > has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
> > that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
> > own needs.
> 
> The problem is that we as list admins are in no position to say what
> "their own needs" are, either in the context of our own lists 

This is not a problem.  This is a feature, and it is precisely the point
I am making.  I can tell potential subscribers what traffic on the lists
that I manage is like (e.g. "10-15 message/week, total volume 50K") but
it is up to *them* to decide what they need to handle that -- plus anything
else they might subscribe to.

So if J. Random User signs up for a list described as "80-120 message/day,
sent in ASCII and HTML and PDF" then J. Random User has implicitly accepted
the personal responsibility to have the resources on hand to deal with
that -- which might mean, I dunno, a fast modem, lots of disk space?
Who can say?  But I know that I, the list manager can't, and won't, solve
this problem for them.

> I cannot wash my hands of them because they "choose not to" quit their
> jobs and work somewhere else in order to be able to discuss Chaucer
> with a mail client of my particular liking - or to keep and use three
> mailers to satisfy the *differing* whims of three separate know-it-all
> listadmins.

Sure you can.  You have *chosen* not to.  That's fine.  Just don't expect
or demand that everyone else make the same choice.  We don't have to.

> > The responsibility of the list admin is to
> > provide a service that matches the description of the service, to do so
> > in as standards-compliant a manner as possible, and to attend to issues
> > such as resource consumption/abuse/etc. in a timely manner.
> 
> Michelle Dick points out that most of us don't get paid to do this.  If we did
> get paid, our "responsibility" would be to do what our supervisors told us to
> do, whether it matched Rich's description and complied with standards, or it was
> totally at odds with his description and trashed the standards, or whatever.

I strongly and firmly disagree.  I believe that it is the obligation
of anyone performing these services in a professional manner to comply
with the relevant standards -- and if that means going against a
supervisor's wishes, then YES that's what it means.

Is that tough? Yes, it is.  Deal with it.  But don't you or anyone else
expect a bit of sympathy from *me* if you cave in to some pointy-haired
boss who wouldn't know an RFC if it landed on his power tie and start
running your mailing lists in a non-standards compliant way that causes
problems for other folks on the 'net.

> I claim that we have not just a responsibility, but an incentive to put
> the user FIRST, and our personal, ephemeral software enthusiasms second;

And you base this claim on...?

Yeah, that's what I thought.  *Nothing*.

Free clue for you: we get to set our own priorities.  If I decide,
for whatever arbitrary reason, that I want to run all my mailing lists
with the foobar package and that I won't accomodate any users who can't
deal with mail from the foobar package, that's my choice.  It may be
a limiting choice or an idiosyncratic choice or even a dumb choice,
but it's still my choice.  Provided it's standards-compliant (so that
it doesn't cause technical problems for other people) there's nothing
stopping me from making it.

> to avoid the
> easy temptation to target our list support at the level of supposedly
> "clueful" users who can actually take care of themselves without our help;

I happen to like those users.  I happen to dislike non-clueful
users.  My lists reflect these likes and and dislikes.  I intend
to continue to run them this way.

> Just personally, where discussion lists are concerned, I think this is
> bullshit - people who imagine they HAVE to be able to use rotating blinking pink
> Playbill drop caps to talk about the new Cessna cockpit design are a lot less
> "clueful" than the term implies. 

Uh...have you been reading this list for any length of time?  I've
vociferously argued against such mechanisms on more than one occasion.

> > the guess that most of those who are stuck with obsolete/broken tools such
> > as All-In-1 and Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange at work could choose
> > to pay for Internet access at home and thus avoid the problem entirely.
> 
> Only for leisure time topics.

Huh?  What's *that* got to do with it?

> I have seen estimates that as many as one-half of
> all mailing lists out there are set up for business communication.

Cite sources, please.

> Rather than argue the issue forever, I look forward to finding and developing
> more tools that will allow the LISTSERV principle to survive for many more
> years.

What "LISTSERV principle"?!  Are you referring to that buggy, expensive,
closed-source, obsolete, hulking behemoth of a mailing list management
package that still has archaic code from its BITnet days?  The only
"principle" that seems to have come from that is that people will continue
to use obsolete software even when vastly superior packages (e.g.
majordomo/majorcool, for one) are available.

---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
rsk@gsp.org

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 16 06:33:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA15164; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:09:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.net-shopper.co.uk (mail.net-shopper.co.uk [194.205.1.152]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA15155 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 06:08:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [194.205.1.208] by mail.net-shopper.co.uk (NTMail 4.20.0009/AB0000.00.719cfeeb) with ESMTP id fduzzbaa for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:34:40 +0000
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990316093656.0092c690@194.205.1.152>
X-Sender: brian-list@194.205.1.152
X-Mailer: Delivered by NTMail - see http://www.ntmail.co.uk
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 09:36:56 +0000
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Brian Dorricott <brian-list@net-shopper.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Sender: header
In-Reply-To: <19990315192515.A20150@dm2.deskmedia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 19:25 15/03/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Is there an RFC relating to the Sender: header, and particularily
>relating to its use in messages sent by a mailing list? I used various
>RFC search engines, and Altavista, and gave up checking the torrent
>of matches after a bit.
>

Yes, RFC822, section 4.4.1.

Brian

-
http://www.ntmail.co.uk/s09



-
Internet Shopper                              http://www.net-shopper.co.uk
WWW and Mail Services                          http://www.ntmail.co.uk/s09
Clevedon, UK                  Voice: +44 1275 340333  Fax: +44 1275 340056


From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 18 20:25:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA02045; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chi.spunge.org (www.spunge.org [209.100.230.195]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA02030; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:18:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from window.spunge.org (window.spunge.org [209.100.230.194])
	by chi.spunge.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA27860;
	Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:21:27 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org>
X-Sender: spunge@spunge.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:21:25 -0600
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
Subject: list attacks
Cc: majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Hello

one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type where
a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts to join
all the lists at a site.

the site in question is running 1.94.3. The person seems to be joining all
the lists both private and public. Is it version 1.94.3 that allows for the
following command?

subscribe *

these attepmts have come in the last 2-3 days, but have happened 4-5 times
now (lost count)

(yes, I plan on upgrading Majordomo at that site was soon as I get a chance)

benji

-------------------->Benji Spencer<--------------------
spunge@spunge.org	http://www.spunge.org
spunge@ripco.com	http://www.ripco.com/~spunge
ben@anduin.eldar.org	http://www.eldar.org/~ben
 ** Finger ben@anduin.eldar.org for PGP public key **
------------------->ICQ # 14089998<--------------------

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 19 00:10:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA03886; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA03879 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 18 Mar 1999 23:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Fri, 19 Mar 1999 03:00:42 -0500
Message-Id: <v03110703b317b37b0b82@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 03:00:18 -0500
To: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: list attacks
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 23:21 -0500 03/18/99, Benji Spencer sent everyone:

>Hello
>
>one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
>other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type where
>a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts to join
>all the lists at a site.

This is usually either (1) a spammer hoping to snag addresses from your
lists (either expecting that subscriber lists are available to subscribers
or planning to glean addresses from posts) or (2) someone whose address
is being subscribed to numerous lists without his consent (indirect
mailbombing). In either case, the attempts should be blocked/denied.

Anyone know if the UpYours crowd is still active? I haven't heard anything
from that part of town for a while. No news may be good news, but I get
nervous when kids are quiet ... ;-)

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 19 00:40:32 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA04237; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA04230; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA07794; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:02:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA25593;
	Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:36:34 -0800
To: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks 
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:21:25 -0600.
             <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:36:34 -0800
Message-ID: <25591.921832594@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org>, you wrote:

>Hello
>
>one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
>other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type where
>a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts to join
>all the lists at a site.

It is probably somebody trying to subscription bomb somebody else.

You should secure all of your lists with an up-front subscription con-
firmation process (done via E-mail) in order to to minimize the damage
to the bombed party.


-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 19 02:09:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA06083; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 01:55:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.ect.uce.ac.uk (mail.ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.138.236]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA06073 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 01:55:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ect.uce.ac.uk [193.60.136.24] by mail.ect.uce.ac.uk
	with Novonyx SMTP Server $Revision:   1.76  $; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:39:17 +0000 (BST)
Message-ID: <36F220D7.A70A15AD@ect.uce.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:03:03 +0000
From: Richard Kay <Rich_Kay@ect.uce.ac.uk>
Organization: UCE
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks
References: <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Someone tried doing this to me once using a message
forged with my address header. He didn't used wildcards,
must have just used the Majordomo command that gets 
a list of lists at that site and probably a short bit
of shell or perl script to generate a forged subscription
request for all lists at 3 sites, one line for each 
request. 

This probably came from a spammer who didn't like my
complaints about such activities to his ISP. Fortunately
only 1 of the 200 or so lists he tried subscribing me
to didn't require any subscription confirmation - thanks
to the great efforts of those who maintain Majordomo code.
Thanks if any of you are listening.

Richard Kay
University of Central England (UCE)

Benji Spencer wrote:
> 
> Hello
> 
> one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
> other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type where
> a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts to join
> all the lists at a site.
> 
> the site in question is running 1.94.3. The person seems to be joining all
> the lists both private and public. Is it version 1.94.3 that allows for the
> following command?
> 
> subscribe *
> 
> these attepmts have come in the last 2-3 days, but have happened 4-5 times
> now (lost count)
> 
> (yes, I plan on upgrading Majordomo at that site was soon as I get a chance)
> 
> benji
> 
> -------------------->Benji Spencer<--------------------
> spunge@spunge.org       http://www.spunge.org
> spunge@ripco.com        http://www.ripco.com/~spunge
> ben@anduin.eldar.org    http://www.eldar.org/~ben
>  ** Finger ben@anduin.eldar.org for PGP public key **
> ------------------->ICQ # 14089998<--------------------

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 19 11:49:29 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA14012; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14000 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA05033 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:06:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA11579
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:40:25 -0800
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks 
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:03:03 +0000.
             <36F220D7.A70A15AD@ect.uce.ac.uk> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:40:24 -0800
Message-ID: <11577.921872424@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <36F220D7.A70A15AD@ect.uce.ac.uk>, 
Richard Kay <Rich_Kay@ect.uce.ac.uk> wrote:

>This probably came from a spammer who didn't like my
>complaints about such activities to his ISP.

Yea.  That's what happened to me too... at least thrice.

>Fortunately only 1 of the 200 or so lists he tried subscribing me
>to didn't require any subscription confirmation - thanks
>to the great efforts of those who maintain Majordomo code.

That's the good news... most ordinary/traditional two-way
mailing lists are now properly secured with a subscription
verification process on the front-end... a process that quite
properly defaults to NOT finalizing the subscription request
unless the magic subscription token is in fact returned by
the alleged new subscriber.

The bad news is that there is an ever-growing number of
one-way commercial marketing / product announcement mailing
lists in existance these days, and almost without exception
they all:

    1)	Have _no_ subscription verification whatsoever, and...

    2)	accept sign-ups via some web form/page somewhere (while
	generally not even bothering to save the IP number or
	date/time stamp of those subscription requests... infor-
	mation that is critical to finding the perp in cases
	involving intentional harassment).

I've had lengthy conversations with several people who run these
kinds of lists, begging, pleading, and cajoling them to try to
get them to add an up-front subscription confirmation step to
their subscription mechanism, and almost without exception, they
always end up just shining me on and saying ``We'll think about
it.  We have to run the idea by marketing first.  Nobody else is
complaining... only you.''

This is the `Tragedy of the Commons' in its purest form.  These
people _always_ use the lame excuse that ``Some of our new sub-
scribers may get confused if we ask them to return a token we
send them.''

My response?  ``Yea.  So?''

Folks running these types of mailing lists don't care if their
subscribers have single digit IQs.  They just want to get them
into the tent and then sell them stuff.  And if they have to do
it buy putting everbody else at risk (of being subscription bombed),
well then the public be damned.

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 19 17:09:23 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA18577; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scifi.squawk.com (scifi.squawk.com [208.235.116.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA18568 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tpad.squawk.com (root@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by scifi.squawk.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA18045;
	Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:07:28 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990319195850.055fac90@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender: njs@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 19:58:50 -0500
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
From: Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com>
Subject: Re: list attacks 
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
In-Reply-To: <11577.921872424@monkeys.com>
References: <Your message of Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:03:03 +0000.             <36F220D7.A70A15AD@ect.uce.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 11:40 AM 3/19/99 -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

>    2)	accept sign-ups via some web form/page somewhere (while
>	generally not even bothering to save the IP number or
>	date/time stamp of those subscription requests... infor-
>	mation that is critical to finding the perp in cases
>	involving intentional harassment).
>
>I've had lengthy conversations with several people who run these
>kinds of lists, begging, pleading, and cajoling them to try to
>get them to add an up-front subscription confirmation step to
>their subscription mechanism, and almost without exception, they
>always end up just shining me on and saying ``We'll think about
>it.  We have to run the idea by marketing first.  Nobody else is
>complaining... only you.''

And furthermore, I have had evidence that they have grabbed mailing list
memberships and signed them up in mass, and their ISPs refuse to act.

In this case, I do not attribute to stupidity what is proven to be malice.
I believe that some of these people are using these open subscription web
forms to deny responsibility for outright spamming.

The good news is that I have hundreds and hundreds of hits on what should
be a robots.txt protected copy of wpoison.  Maybe, just maybe, I have
protected my list archives from being harvested for e-mail addresses yet
again.  Thanks for that.
--
Eat natto in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you for the rest of 
the day - http://scifi.squawk.com/natto.html
Nick Simicich mailto:njs@scifi.squawk.com or (last choice)
mailto:njs@us.ibm.com
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!

From list-managers-owner  Sat Mar 20 11:58:06 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA01729; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA01719 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from watsol.cc.columbia.edu (watsol.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.39.139]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA10168; Fri, 19 Mar 1999 05:25:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from brennan@localhost)
	by watsol.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA19499;
	Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:28:44 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 99 8:28:44 EST
From: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
To: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:21:25 -0600
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.921850124.brennan@watsol>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> Hello
> 
> one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
> other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type where
> a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts to join
> all the lists at a site.

Are they coming from telmex.net.mx (I don't mean the From line, I mean
the host sending them-- look at syslog)?  Somebody's been abusing over
100 majordomo sites including us.  We are seeing about 200 individual
separate messages per victim, taking about 15 minutes start to finish.
Some are subscribe messages and some are "help".  Three addresses at
apc.org have been hit, and four others, from March 12 to 18.

All our lists are either closed or open+confirm, so impact is limited
to one reply per message, but 200 in still is 200 out, and if the perp
is doing this at over 100 sites as I was told by apc.org's postmaster,
that's a lot of mail.  He says many lists elsewhere were set to open or
auto.

I just saw more this morning, but for the first time not from
telmex.net.mx.  And I think some of this morning's were probes to see
what IPs we have blocked (we got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups) in
preparation for more.  I'm going to study them shortly.

Joseph Brennan  Postmaster  Academic Information Systems
                Columbia University in the City of New York
                postmaster@columbia.edu



From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 21 11:43:35 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA16421; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:23:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id LAA16413 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:23:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA03664 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 18707 invoked by uid 500); 20 Mar 1999 23:26:13 -0000
Message-ID: <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:26:13 -0500
From: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
To: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
        Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM,
        postmaster@apc.org, postmaster@igc.org
Subject: Re: list attacks
References: <CMM.0.90.4.921850124.brennan@watsol>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.4.921850124.brennan@watsol>; from Joe Brennan on Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 08:28:44AM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

In the immortal words of Joe Brennan (brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu):
> 
> Are they coming from telmex.net.mx (I don't mean the From line, I mean
> the host sending them-- look at syslog)?  

BINGO.  One of the sites that I help maintain has been under _constant_
attack by this moron since the week before last.

We have over _12 Megabytes_ worth of majordomo logs showing the forged
subscribe requests from these twits.

It appears to be political in nature -- many of the addresses that he 
(they?) are forge-subscribing are in the apc.org and igc.org domains,
which are American left-ish groups with particular concerns about labor
and land issues in Latin America.  (May also have something to do with
their support of the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, but that's just a
guess based on some of their addresses.)

We've tried to contact the responsible parties at the ISPs that the
attacks are originating from, but the language barrier has been 
problematic.  If there's anybody here who's fluent in Mexican-idiomatic
Spanish and has made contact with them, please contact me directly,
as we'd love to coordinate with you.


> I just saw more this morning, but for the first time not from
> telmex.net.mx.  And I think some of this morning's were probes to see
> what IPs we have blocked (we got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups) in
> preparation for more.  I'm going to study them shortly.

Yeah, they've been hopping between ISPs a lot.  We've got three seperate
class-B netblocks blocked already, and are hoping we don't eventually
have to end up blocking out all of .mx.

-n
 
------------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
And by / the phone / I live / in fear.
Sheer chance / will draw / you in / to here.                 (--Soul Coughing)
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------


From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 21 14:58:03 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA18231; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:44:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA18224; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:44:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA12842; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:19:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA03535;
	Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:54:32 -0800
To: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
cc: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
        Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM, postmaster@apc.org,
        postmaster@igc.org
Subject: Re: list attacks 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:26:13 -0500.
             <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:54:32 -0800
Message-ID: <3533.922056872@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org>, 
"Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org> wrote:

>> I just saw more this morning, but for the first time not from
>> telmex.net.mx.  And I think some of this morning's were probes to see
>> what IPs we have blocked (we got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups) in
>> preparation for more.  I'm going to study them shortly.
>
>Yeah, they've been hopping between ISPs a lot.  We've got three seperate
>class-B netblocks blocked already, and are hoping we don't eventually
>have to end up blocking out all of .mx.

If you are ISP or corporate mail administrator, blocking _direct_ SMTP
from dialups that don't belong to your own company is a Good Idea, IMHO.

You can take out essentially all of the world's problematic dialups in one
feel swoop via the comprehensive DSSL list.  See http://www.imrss.org/dssl/
for more info.

(I think I've got all of telmex.net.mx's dialups in there already, but if
I have missed any, please _do_ let me know.  Other Mexican providers that
are also covered by the DSSL include: data.net.mx, infosel.net.mx, and
uninet.net.mx.)

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 21 15:12:59 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA18297; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chi.spunge.org (www.spunge.org [209.100.230.195]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA18284; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from window.spunge.org (window.spunge.org [209.100.230.194])
	by chi.spunge.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA17778;
	Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:53:58 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990321165327.008a1710@spunge.org>
X-Sender: spunge@spunge.org
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:53:27 -0600
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com, majordomo-users@greatcircle.com
From: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
Subject: more list attacks - some mail headers
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Hello again

this last week has been interesting..after looking at the majordomo logs I
found a number of these attacks..they are getting annoying...there has been
some 24 attacks since like Mar 11.

now..as I seen on a list, I had all the mail that would usually go to
majordomo@valinor.eldar.org (valinor.eldar.org is the server where we run
majordomo) also sent to my user account. This has proven interesting. Since
setting this into place, there has been 3 attacks. here is the first of the
recieved lines in those emails (these repersent 2 attacks on/from
mexico.com and 1 on/from aol.com).

Received: from aol.com (inter722.internet.com.mx [207.249.191.152])
	by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29712
	for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:42:08 -0500 (EST)

Received: from mexico.com (t5s28.data.net.mx [207.249.173.37])
	by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01829
	for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:11:19 -0500 (EST)

Received: from mexico.com (t2s8.data.net.mx [200.13.19.17])
	by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03394
	for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:35:18 -0500 (EST)

as for apc.org, I have been in contact with a person from there. From what
they have told me, and from what I have seen, I would say the "from" line
indicates a victom, not the attacker. 

I am not an expert on this. I am learning as I go. maybe someone could show
a little more insite?

Benji




-------------------->Benji Spencer<--------------------
spunge@spunge.org	http://www.spunge.org
spunge@ripco.com	http://www.ripco.com/~spunge
ben@anduin.eldar.org	http://www.eldar.org/~ben
 ** Finger ben@anduin.eldar.org for PGP public key **
------------------->ICQ # 14089998<--------------------

From list-managers-owner  Sun Mar 21 17:54:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA20080; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cybercorp.net (www.cybercorp.net [207.112.30.80]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA20073 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (rhiggins@localhost)
	by cybercorp.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA04446
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:39:13 -0500
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:39:13 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" <rhiggins@cybercorp.net>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.4.921850124.brennan@watsol>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990321202503.2844B-100000@cybercorp.net>
Organization: CyberCorp Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Joe Brennan wrote:

> I just saw more this morning, but for the first time not from
> telmex.net.mx.  And I think some of this morning's were probes to see

FYI: Almost all my lists are being hit, not just from telmex.net.mx

Even two "dummy" or "test" lists which only have me and my
addresses on other systems subscribed.


---rob---  %% virted, soho-can & webmaster-l list facilitator %%

 Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. |          ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~
      CyberCorp Inc.        |      GymVCOW - http://www.cybercorp.net/COW
  rhiggins@cybercorp.net    |    GymVMOO - http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO
 http://www.cybercorp.net   |   GymVCourses - http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv



From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 22 01:28:05 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA25361; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:16:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA25250 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihug.co.nz (p52-max4.wlg.ihug.co.nz [209.78.48.244]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA32619 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:19:10 +1200
Message-ID: <36F60AB4.197F4139@ihug.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:17:44 +1200
From: Olwen Williams <olwen@ihug.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers
References: <3.0.5.32.19990321165327.008a1710@spunge.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


Does any one have any information on who's being subscribed to these lists?

I got a message the other day that I ignored, asking me to confirm a subscription,
but there's been only one of them, and a member of a list that I run appears to have
been subscribed to a list she had no intention of joining.  She reports getting
thousands of messages from people complaining about being subscribed to the list.



Benji Spencer wrote:

> Hello again
>
> this last week has been interesting..after looking at the majordomo logs I
> found a number of these attacks..they are getting annoying...there has been
> some 24 attacks since like Mar 11.
>
> now..as I seen on a list, I had all the mail that would usually go to
> majordomo@valinor.eldar.org (valinor.eldar.org is the server where we run
> majordomo) also sent to my user account. This has proven interesting. Since
> setting this into place, there has been 3 attacks. here is the first of the
> recieved lines in those emails (these repersent 2 attacks on/from
> mexico.com and 1 on/from aol.com).
>
> Received: from aol.com (inter722.internet.com.mx [207.249.191.152])
>         by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29712
>         for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:42:08 -0500 (EST)
>
> Received: from mexico.com (t5s28.data.net.mx [207.249.173.37])
>         by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01829
>         for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:11:19 -0500 (EST)
>
> Received: from mexico.com (t2s8.data.net.mx [200.13.19.17])
>         by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03394
>         for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:35:18 -0500 (EST)
>
> as for apc.org, I have been in contact with a person from there. From what
> they have told me, and from what I have seen, I would say the "from" line
> indicates a victom, not the attacker.
>
> I am not an expert on this. I am learning as I go. maybe someone could show
> a little more insite?
>
> Benji
>
> -------------------->Benji Spencer<--------------------
> spunge@spunge.org       http://www.spunge.org
> spunge@ripco.com        http://www.ripco.com/~spunge
> ben@anduin.eldar.org    http://www.eldar.org/~ben
>  ** Finger ben@anduin.eldar.org for PGP public key **
> ------------------->ICQ # 14089998<--------------------


From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 22 02:12:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA25714; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA25705 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 01:55:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sisterray.xs4all.nl (sisterray.xs4all.nl [194.109.57.59])
	by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA26877
	for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:59:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from rejo@localhost)
	by sisterray.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00427
	for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:56:31 +0100
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:56:30 +0100
From: Rejo <subs@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers
Message-ID: <19990322105630.C418@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: Rejo <rejo@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
Organization: Sister Ray Crisiscentrum
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

++ 21.03.1999, 16:53:27 (-0600) = Benji Spencer:
>as for apc.org, I have been in contact with a person from there. From what
>they have told me, and from what I have seen, I would say the "from" line
>indicates a victom, not the attacker. 

Don't know exactly what you were looking for, but the From line is
extremely easy to forge. If you're try to find an attacker, use the
Receive lines. You can analyse them and they probably point out to the
attacker. But take care, watch them closely as the oldest ones can be
forged as well.

-Rejo.

-- 
= SISTER RAY [sister@mediaport.org] / REJO [rejo@sisterray.xs4all.nl]
= PGP: DSS B20D35F8, RSA FAE40065; finger sister@xs4all.nl, keyservers 
= Subscribe to Live & Local, more info at http://mediaport.org/~sister






From list-managers-owner  Mon Mar 22 13:41:39 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA05782; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:24:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id NAA05770 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-nt1.glassnet.net (mail-nt1.glasscity.net [208.13.0.37]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id HAA14492 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 07:50:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dialup-118.tnt-1.tol.glasscity.net (dialup-118.tnt-1.tol.glasscity.net [208.13.25.118]) by mail-nt1.glasscity.net (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.advf) with ESMTP id va205421 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:52:17 -0500
From: "Michael E. Cupp, Jr." <0574@glasscity.net>
To: <list-managers@greatcircle.com>
Subject: HELP, please, Majordomo 1.94.4 - Sendmail config issues.
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:56:17 -0500
Message-ID: <000401be73b3$5b2bf420$76190dd0@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Importance: High
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I am trying to install Majordomo 1.94.4 on RH5.2

I got everything going good, I do the ./wrapper config-test and it works,
and says everything should be ok.  (I had to switch on the POSIX flags, is
this normal?)

Now, the problem is when I go to use mail (mail user, etc, etc), I get a
message back to the console (No matter who I'm logged in as) that says:
  hash map "Alias1": unsafe map file /usr/majordomo/majordomo.aliases: No
such file or directory

/usr/majordomo is the majordomo home dir, and the majordomo.aliases file
exists.  Here is a directory listing:
   -rw-r--r--   1 root     root          826 Mar 17 21:35
/usr/majordomo/majordomo.aliases
         (Readable to world)

Can someone, PLEASE Help me???  Thanks.
The portion of the sendmail.cf file referenced is listed below:

<SNIP>
###############
#   Options   #
###############
<SNIP>
# location of alias file
O AliasFile=/etc/aliases
O AliasFile=/usr/majordomo/majordomo.aliases
<SNIP>



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 01:23:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id BAA14404; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:09:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id BAA14388; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:09:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14087; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:14:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA28775;
	Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:19:12 -0800
To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@cranfield.ac.uk>
cc: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
        List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        Majordomo Users List <majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: list attacks 
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:39:04 +0000.
             <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230836450.7430-100000@arpad.thegreen.private> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 01:19:11 -0800
Message-ID: <28773.922180751@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230836450.7430-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>, yo
u wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
>> You can take out essentially all of the world's problematic dialups in one
>> feel swoop via the comprehensive DSSL list.  See http://www.imrss.org/dssl/
>> for more info.
>
>Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but what's the difference between
>DSSL and DUL?  I didn't know about DSSL until now.

What is today called the MAPS DUL started out a long time ago when I
realized that a lot of spammers were sending spam direct from dialup
lines.  I put togther a small list of IP address ranges for the most
common sources of this ``direct-from-dialup'' spam, for blocking purposes,
and then I published the list on the spamtools mailing list.

Later on, the head abuse guy at Erols Internet (a big East Coast ISP) took
over the list and maintained it and enhanced it with more address ranges.

Then it got given to a guy in Canada who added some more address ranges.

Then he couldn't deal with it anymore, so it got given to the MAPS RBL
folks.  It then got renamed as the MAPS RBL.

Meawhile, I was trying to find a better way to do this same sort of thing,
i.e. provide a blocking list for SMTP direct from dialup lines.  I wanted
some mechanism that was easier to maintain, even as various ISPs changed
what IP address blocks they were using.  The best way to do this seemed
to be to have some sort of a blocking list that would be based in some way
on the reverse DNS name of the node that was connecting to your SMTP server.

After some substantial arguments about how to make this work, I, working
with a brilliant fellow who also happened to be a subscriber to the spamtools
list (and who prefers to remain mostly anonymous) created a dialups blocking
list based primarily upon reverse DNS names (and patterns for those) and we
made it accessible in a 100% compatible way to the pre-existing access
mechanism that had already been established by the users and promoters of
the MAPS RBL blocking list.  (That is to say it is accessed via DNS from
our central server, where I maintian the list constantly.)  Thus was born
the DSSL.

I have been maintaining and enhancing the DSSL in a daily basis ever since.
This list now covers the dialup blocks of over 2,000 different providers of
dynamic dialup service (essentially all of whom are either ISPs or else
Universities).

My original idea for the DSSL was to agressively include any any all reverse
DNS name patterns for _everybody's_ dialup blocks... at least all of the ones
that I could find, by hook or by crook, and also patterns for cable modem
lines and also xDSL lines.  But a lot of criticism caused me to back off and
be a lot less agressive in the way the list was constructed.  Now the DSSL
list contains _only_ patterns for blocks of dialups that I (or my extensive
spamtraps) *have* actually gotten one or more spams from, and (as far as I
know) it contains _no_ patterns that match any ``static'' IP address spam
sources such as cablem modes lines or xDSL lines.  (Those can be blocked
via other means, when necessary, e.g. the MAPS RBL.)  Still, the DSSL list
is quite extensive, and by using it, you can probably block in excess of 98%
of all of the direct-from-dialup spam that would otherwise  come into your
mail server.  This is made all the more remarkable by the fact that use of
_this_ spam blocking list typically produces virtually ZERO false positives
(i.e. good non-spam message incorrectly rejected).  The reason for this is
obvious... essentially nobody but spammers does SMTP direct from dialups.

More info is available at http://www.imrss.org/dssl/.  Note that the docu-
mentation there is a bit out-of-date, as it still talks about cable modems
and xDSL lines, even though there are none of those (as far as I know) on
the current DSSL list.

P.S.  One fellow who computed some modest and informal statistics on the
``catch rates'' produced by the MAPS RBL versus the DSSL published some
results that indicated that the DSSL had an approximately 40% better catch
rate over the MAPS RBL.  I have not seen any stats, to dat, relating to
false positives for these lists, but I firmly believe that the name based
approach is far less likely to produce _any_ false positives, whereas mere
static IP address ranges can often accidently include legitimat non-dialup
mail servers (thus producing false positives, perhaps many of them).

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 14:23:32 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA25752; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA25744 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:10:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA13993; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from modem-94.fluorine.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.4.94] ident=cc047)
	by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 10PMiJ-0000Tx-00; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:39:07 +0000
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
X-Sender: cc047@arpad.thegreen.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
cc: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
        List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        Majordomo Users List <majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM>
Subject: Re: list attacks 
In-Reply-To: <3533.922056872@monkeys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230836450.7430-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> You can take out essentially all of the world's problematic dialups in one
> feel swoop via the comprehensive DSSL list.  See http://www.imrss.org/dssl/
> for more info.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but what's the difference between
DSSL and DUL?  I didn't know about DSSL until now.

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
 Cranfield Computer Centre      FAX         751 814
 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk     http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 14:38:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA25741; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA25731 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.svr.pol.co.uk (mail3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA13632; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from modem-94.fluorine.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.4.94] ident=cc047)
	by mail3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 10PMCm-0006og-00; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:06:34 +0000
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:06:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
X-Sender: cc047@arpad.thegreen.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
To: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
cc: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.4.922124959.brennan@watsol>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230753520.7367-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Joe Brennan wrote:

> The real source of mail is dialups (seen so far) owned by
> telmex.net.mx (March 12-19), data.net.mx (March 19), and
> internet.com.mx (March 19-20). 

Does anyone know if this are listed on dul.maps.vix.com Realtime Blackhole
List.  (This is the RBL system for dial-up addresses, see
http://maps.vix.com/ for more information.)

> attempts from them.  I'm adopting a wait and see as to whether the
> person can just open another account.  We're rejecting mail from
> their dialup IPs.  Their dialup users shouldn't be connecting straight
> to us anyway.
> 
> I didn't have time yet to draw up a report to data.net.mx but we are
> rejecting their dialups as well.  We got and rejected an attempt from
> there over the weekend.
> 
> I just saw internet.com.mx this morning.  Their hostnames are not
> available through nslookup so I can't make a list of their dialups.
> Obviously 207.249.191. looks like something to start with.

This doesn't appear to be on the DUL list.  Someone who actually has logs
of these incoming should send off a report to the DUL list maintainers.
Everyone else should start using DUL blocking at least.

-j
-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
 Cranfield Computer Centre      FAX         751 814
 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk     http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 14:54:48 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA25601; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA25591 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from watsol.cc.columbia.edu (watsol.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.39.139]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA02838; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:46:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from brennan@localhost)
	by watsol.cc.columbia.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA07816;
	Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:49:19 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 99 12:49:19 EST
From: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
To: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>
Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:53:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.4.922124959.brennan@watsol>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


Received: from aol.com (inter722.internet.com.mx [207.249.191.152])
        by valinor.eldar.org (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA29712
        for <majordomo@valinor.eldar.org>; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:42:08 -0500 (EST)

Above shows a dialup owned by internet.com.mx connecting to your
host valinor.eldar.org.  Dialup calls itself aol.com in the smtp
greeting ("HELO aol.com") but your sendmail has properly identified
the real hostname and IP inside () marks.  This is forgery, but note
that mismatch sometimes is not a sign of problems but just means the
host has alternate or vanity names.

The From address is faked to the victim.  The idea is to get your
majordomo system to participate in filling the victim's mailbox.
It will send at least one message back to the From address.  If you
allow subscribe_policy "auto" it will send list mail until the
victim unsubscribes.

Perpetrator has an old list of lists (it's months out of date for our
majordomo lists anyway).  Faked mail is usually a lot of "help"
commands, and then "subscribe" to every list the perp thinks you
have.  We are seeing about 200 messages per victim.

The real source of mail is dialups (seen so far) owned by
telmex.net.mx (March 12-19), data.net.mx (March 19), and
internet.com.mx (March 19-20). 

Administrator of telmex.net.mx sent me mail late Friday saying they
found the account used and cancelled it.  This matches no more
attempts from them.  I'm adopting a wait and see as to whether the
person can just open another account.  We're rejecting mail from
their dialup IPs.  Their dialup users shouldn't be connecting straight
to us anyway.

I didn't have time yet to draw up a report to data.net.mx but we are
rejecting their dialups as well.  We got and rejected an attempt from
there over the weekend.

I just saw internet.com.mx this morning.  Their hostnames are not
available through nslookup so I can't make a list of their dialups.
Obviously 207.249.191. looks like something to start with.

Joseph Brennan  Postmaster  Academic Information Systems
                Columbia University in the City of New York
                postmaster@columbia.edu





From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 20:00:20 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA29435; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:43:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA29428 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:21 -0500
Message-Id: <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 -0500
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: InterNIC is History
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

In case you haven't realized it yet, the InterNIC is now history;
Network Solutions, in an attempt to build brand identity, has moved
all of the InterNIC functions to www.networksolutions.com ("The Dot
Com People" -- ugh). The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
history, though distributed whois is still available.

It gets better ...

The new "InterNIC" web site at <http://www.networksolutions.com/>
is geared to the kloo-free crowd -- kiss your "domain names" goodbye,
kids, and say hello to "web addresses." Double ugh.

Anyway, I really miss the ability to access the root server database
via telnet ... has anyone found an alternate means of doing this?
There are plenty of web interfaces, but I just have this thing for
CLIs.

I hate sounding like I'm rooted in the past, but the more this stuff
keeps happening, the more I really appreciate The Good Olde Days, when
the Net was simpler, and my packets had to walk 10 miles through the
snow to get to the nearest router (and it was uphill both ways).  ;-)

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 20:15:59 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA29524; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id TAA29515; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA14843; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA26584;
	Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:01:28 -0800
To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
cc: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>,
        Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers 
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:06:28 +0000.
             <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230753520.7367-100000@arpad.thegreen.private> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:01:28 -0800
Message-ID: <26582.922248088@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903230753520.7367-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>, yo
u wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Joe Brennan wrote:
>
>> The real source of mail is dialups (seen so far) owned by
>> telmex.net.mx (March 12-19), data.net.mx (March 19), and
>> internet.com.mx (March 19-20). 
>
>Does anyone know if this are listed on dul.maps.vix.com Realtime Blackhole
>List...

Nope.  I don't know.  But the dialups of all three are already on the DSSL
DynamicIP Spam Sources List.

>{internet.com.mx}
> doesn't appear to be on the DUL list.  Someone who actually has logs
>of these incoming should send off a report to the DUL list maintainers.
>Everyone else should start using DUL blocking at least.

Or better yet, DSSL blocking which is more comprehensive.

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 23 20:28:20 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA29788; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:04:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA29781; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17625; Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA27137;
	Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:15:20 -0800
To: Joe Brennan <brennan@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>
cc: Benji Spencer <spunge@spunge.org>, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM,
        majordomo-users@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: more list attacks - some mail headers 
In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:49:19 -0500.
             <CMM.0.90.4.922124959.brennan@watsol> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 20:15:20 -0800
Message-ID: <27135.922248920@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <CMM.0.90.4.922124959.brennan@watsol>, you wrote:

>I didn't have time yet to draw up a report to data.net.mx but we are
>rejecting their dialups as well...

If you are smart, you will reject _all_ direct connects to your SMTP port
from _all_ dialups, other than your own.  If you get a direct connect to
your SMTP port from a dialup that is not your own, then it is probably
one having evil intent behind it, e.g. either spamming or mailbombing,
or subscription bombing, or the latest twist... harvesting of E-mail
addresses (for later spamming) direct from your SMTP server.

>I just saw internet.com.mx this morning.  Their hostnames are not
>available through nslookup...

Try it again from another machine.

As far as I know, all of the internet.com.mx dialups _do_ have reverse
DNS, and they all fit the regular expression pattern:

	^inter[0-9]+\.internet\.com\.mx$


-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 00:09:29 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA03038; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA03031 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:05:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00297 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA00512
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:09 -0800
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History 
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 -0500.
             <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:17:09 -0800
Message-ID: <510.922263429@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>, 
Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com> wrote:

>In case you haven't realized it yet, the InterNIC is now history;
>Network Solutions, in an attempt to build brand identity, has moved
>all of the InterNIC functions to www.networksolutions.com ("The Dot
>Com People" -- ugh). The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>history, though distributed whois is still available.

I'm not sure which WHOIS server _you_ are talking about, but the normal
WHOIS server (port 43) run by Internic still seems to be alive and well
and answering queries as of five seconds ago.

>I hate sounding like I'm rooted in the past, but the more this stuff
>keeps happening, the more I really appreciate The Good Olde Days, when
>the Net was simpler, and my packets had to walk 10 miles through the
>snow to get to the nearest router (and it was uphill both ways).  ;-)

I will be PLENTY pissed too, when and if they actually _do_ stop servicing
whois queries.  I wrote a fairly extensive world-wide domain name lookup
program (see http://www.imrss.org/cgi-bin/dnw.cgi) that relies on that
being there, and working.  If they take it away [*] ...  which they pro-
bably _will_ be stupid enough to try to do at some point... then I have
a feeling that I won't be the only one who will get mighty pissed about
that.


[*] NSI _is_ obviously now trying to remake itself into a more competitive
more commercial animal.  As part of this makeover, I _do_ expect that at
some point they will say again... as they have tried to say in the past...
that their data base of data on all .COM domains is in fact a juicy
``intellecutal property asset'' that they will not share, in any way shape
or form, with anybody.  The absurdity of this position with regards to the
ongoing smooth functioning of the net should be obvious... to anyone outside
of NSI at least.

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 07:56:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA11706; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:48:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA11697 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA136310715; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:56 -0500
Message-Id: <199903241551.AA136310715@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 EST."
             <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:55 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>Anyway, I really miss the ability to access the root server database
>via telnet ... has anyone found an alternate means of doing this?
>There are plenty of web interfaces, but I just have this thing for
>CLIs.

I might be missing something but what could you do with the telnet
interface that you can't do with dig or nslookup?  (both CLI)

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 08:11:08 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA11838; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:58:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA11830 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:58:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:02:23 -0500
Message-Id: <v03110706b31eb5466645@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <510.922263429@monkeys.com>
References: Your message of Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 -0500.        
     <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:21 -0500
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 03:17 -0500 03/24/99, Ronald F. Guilmette said:

>In message <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>, 
>Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com> wrote:
>
>>In case you haven't realized it yet, the InterNIC is now history;
>>Network Solutions, in an attempt to build brand identity, has moved
>>all of the InterNIC functions to www.networksolutions.com ("The Dot
>>Com People" -- ugh). The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>>history, though distributed whois is still available.
>
>I'm not sure which WHOIS server _you_ are talking about,

Port 23 -- the CLI server that has for years been available at the
standard telnet port.

>but the normal
>WHOIS server (port 43) run by Internic still seems to be alive and well
>and answering queries as of five seconds ago.

That's what I referred to as the distributed whois server -- which, yes,
is still running (thank glub).

>I will be PLENTY pissed too, when and if they actually _do_ stop servicing
>whois queries.  I wrote a fairly extensive world-wide domain name lookup
>program (see http://www.imrss.org/cgi-bin/dnw.cgi) that relies on that
>being there, and working.  If they take it away [*] ...  which they pro-
>bably _will_ be stupid enough to try to do at some point... then I have
>a feeling that I won't be the only one who will get mighty pissed about
>that.

Oh, people are mighty pissed _already_. I'm on a mailing list at ISOC,
and I can assure that the current changes were not well received. But
yes, if they kill distributed whois, the backlash will be incredible.

I used to like NSI (I don't personally have a problem with someone
having a contract-mandated monopoly), but their recent actions are
souring that. It is clear that they are repositioning themselves in the
market, but seem to be leaving the net.veterans behind in the process.
I'd think that they could have it both ways.

>[*] NSI _is_ obviously now trying to remake itself into a more competitive
>more commercial animal.  As part of this makeover, I _do_ expect that at
>some point they will say again... as they have tried to say in the past...
>that their data base of data on all .COM domains is in fact a juicy
>``intellecutal property asset'' that they will not share, in any way shape
>or form, with anybody.  The absurdity of this position with regards to the
>ongoing smooth functioning of the net should be obvious... to anyone outside
>of NSI at least.

Agreed.

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 08:27:34 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA12375; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA12365 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:22:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:26:12 -0500
Message-Id: <v03110708b31ec1f060de@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <199903241551.AA136310715@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
References: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:47:07 EST."        
     <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:25:35 -0500
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 10:51 -0500 03/24/99, Mitch Collinsworth sent everyone:

>>Anyway, I really miss the ability to access the root server database
>>via telnet ... has anyone found an alternate means of doing this?
>>There are plenty of web interfaces, but I just have this thing for
>>CLIs.
>
>I might be missing something but what could you do with the telnet
>interface that you can't do with dig or nslookup?  (both CLI)

Not much -- in fact, not AS much. But if all I want to do is look up
root server records, the telnet interface has always been my preferred
source. Just a matter of preference.

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 09:11:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA13098; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA13091 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA137495285; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:08:06 -0500
Message-Id: <199903241708.AA137495285@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:21 EST."
             <v03110706b31eb5466645@[207.252.88.49]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:08:05 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>>>The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>>>history, though distributed whois is still available.
>>
>>I'm not sure which WHOIS server _you_ are talking about,
>
>Port 23 -- the CLI server that has for years been available at the
>standard telnet port.
>
>>but the normal
>>WHOIS server (port 43) run by Internic still seems to be alive and well
>>and answering queries as of five seconds ago.
>
>That's what I referred to as the distributed whois server -- which, yes,
>is still running (thank glub).


Hmm,  either I'm confused here or you are.  (And I'm necessarily
assuming it's you.)  My experience is that the whois database and the
root DNS database are not in fact the same thing.  I have seen a skew
problem between them that took months to correct.  If you _really_ want
to know who someone's nameservers are, look at the NS records in the DNS.
Whois is (sometimes) useful for contact info, but I wouldn't trust it
beyond that.

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 09:27:22 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA13299; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA13281 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:18:33 -0500
Message-Id: <v0311070db31ece203f10@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <199903241708.AA137495285@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
References: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:51:21 EST."        
     <v03110706b31eb5466645@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:18:27 -0500
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 12:08 -0500 03/24/99, Mitch Collinsworth sent everyone:

>>>>The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>>>>history, though distributed whois is still available.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure which WHOIS server _you_ are talking about,
>>
>>Port 23 -- the CLI server that has for years been available at the
>>standard telnet port.
>>
>>>but the normal
>>>WHOIS server (port 43) run by Internic still seems to be alive and well
>>>and answering queries as of five seconds ago.
>>
>>That's what I referred to as the distributed whois server -- which, yes,
>>is still running (thank glub).
>
>Hmm,  either I'm confused here or you are.  (And I'm necessarily
>assuming it's you.)  My experience is that the whois database and the
>root DNS database are not in fact the same thing.  I have seen a skew
>problem between them that took months to correct.  If you _really_ want
>to know who someone's nameservers are, look at the NS records in the DNS.
>Whois is (sometimes) useful for contact info, but I wouldn't trust it
>beyond that.

For most pursuits for which I (and many folks) use whois, the distinction
is irrelevant. If I really need DNS records, I use nslookup.

Are we somehow getting bogged down in minutia and failing to see that
there's a forest of change occurring here -- and it's not necessarily
a harbinger of *good* change?

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 09:43:01 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA13502; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA13490 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:25:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA137826525; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:28:45 -0500
Message-Id: <199903241728.AA137826525@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Cc: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:18:27 EST."
             <v0311070db31ece203f10@[207.252.88.49]> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:28:44 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>>Hmm,  either I'm confused here or you are.  (And I'm necessarily
>>assuming it's you.)

Oh, this is a typo.  I re-editted the parenthetical and screwed up the
meaning.  I meant to say I'm NOT necessarily assuming it's you.  Please
accept my apology for this.


>Are we somehow getting bogged down in minutia and failing to see that
>there's a forest of change occurring here -- and it's not necessarily
>a harbinger of *good* change?

Of course we are.  List managers are by definition if not by necessity,
tenders of minutia!   :-)

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 11:07:37 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA15303; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:48:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pw001.proweb.co.uk (pw001.proweb.co.uk [195.182.164.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA15294 for <List-Managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:48:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from travels (ppp113.proweb.co.uk [195.182.164.143])
	by pw001.proweb.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA02876
	for <List-Managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:52:00 GMT
Message-ID: <002801be7626$f1570780$8fa4b6c3@travels>
From: "Sally" <SallyHanford@bigfoot.com>
To: <List-Managers@greatcircle.com>
Subject: bulk mailing
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:48:39 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Hi there,

I am trying to find information about how to do multiple mailouts from MS
outlook. I know that I can have a personal address book in Outlook, but I do
not want each recipient to receive a mail with other people's addresses
listed, and I would also like to import the list from a file.
Do I need to buy a list management package to do this?

I would be grateful for any advice

Thanks


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 13:30:56 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA17745; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA17738 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:09:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA140679987; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:13:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199903242113.AA140679987@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
Cc: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:52:22 EST."
             <19990324155222.Y1001@blank.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:13:06 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>> I might be missing something but what could you do with the telnet
>> interface that you can't do with dig or nslookup?  (both CLI)
>
>Er, you're missing quite a bit.  whois != dns.

Correctomundo.  When I wrote this it was in response to a reference
to a telnet interface to a root server, which implies DNS.  Note my
later message pointing out this very fact when Vince's later message
made it clear that he was in fact referring to a telnet interface to
whois.

Also note Vince's later message suggesting we not get bogged down in
"minutia".

-Mitch



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 14:03:03 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA17890; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA17835 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sisterray.xs4all.nl (sisterray.xs4all.nl [194.109.57.59])
	by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA08921
	for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:18:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from rejo@localhost)
	by sisterray.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00502
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:49:16 +0100
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:49:16 +0100
From: Rejo <subs@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: list attacks
Message-ID: <19990324204916.A491@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
Reply-To: Rejo <rejo@sisterray.xs4all.nl>
Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
References: <CMM.0.90.4.921850124.brennan@watsol> <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i
In-Reply-To: <19990320182613.G1017@blank.org>; from Nathan J. Mehl on Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 06:26:13PM -0500
Organization: Sister Ray Crisiscentrum
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

++ 20.03.1999, 18:26:13 (-0500) = Nathan J. Mehl:
>> Are they coming from telmex.net.mx (I don't mean the From line, I mean
>> the host sending them-- look at syslog)?  
>BINGO.  One of the sites that I help maintain has been under _constant_
>attack by this moron since the week before last.
[...]
>We've tried to contact the responsible parties at the ISPs that the
>attacks are originating from, but the language barrier has been 

And this ISP (guess you're talking about texmex.net.mx) is not very
helpfull (due the language barrier)? I received several spams from a
client of them. I complained and in less then an hour i received a reply
saying they had deleted the spammers' account...

-Rejo.

-- 
= SISTER RAY / REJO [rejo@sisterray.xs4all.nl]
= PGP: DSS B20D35F8, RSA FAE40065; finger sister@xs4all.nl, keyservers 
= WEB: http://mediaport.org/~sister/overzicht.html






From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 14:17:32 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA18331; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA18319 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 13:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA141332581; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:56:21 -0500
Message-Id: <199903242156.AA141332581@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: sendmail -f
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:56:21 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


Ok this time I am admittedly missing something very basic.

I'm upgrading to sendmail 8.9.1 running on FreeBSD 3.0  (from um, a
very old version of sendmail running on a very old OS  :-).  I have
searched the sendmail and majordomo FAQs end-to-end and not found
this question.)

When I use sendmail -f in an alias to set up a list, e.g.:

foo:        "|/usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -fowner-foo foo-out"
foo-out:    me
owner-foo:  me,

Instead of doing what you would normally expect, sendmail prepends a
blank line, pushing the existing headers into the message body, and
generates an entire new set of headers at the top, with the -f value
in the new From: header.  Simple example:


---------------------

Return-path: owner-foo@Graphics.Cornell.EDU
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by bach.Graphics.Cornell.EDU (8.9.1/8.9.1) id QAA07146
	for foo-out; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:37:38 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from owner-foo)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:37:38 -0500 (EST)
From: owner-foo@Graphics.Cornell.EDU
Message-id: <199903242137.QAA07146@bach.Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Apparently-to: <me@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>

>From owner-foo  Wed Mar 24 16:37:37 1999
Received: from maytag.graphics.cornell.edu (MAYTAG.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU 
[128.84.247.157])
	by bach.Graphics.Cornell.EDU (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA07143
	for <foo@bach.graphics.cornell.edu>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:37:37 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from me@graphics.cornell.edu)
Received: from localhost by maytag.graphics.cornell.edu; 
(5.65/1.1.8.2/07Nov94-0649PM)
	id AA12908; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:37:36 -0500
Message-Id: <9903242137.AA12908@maytag.graphics.cornell.edu>
To: foo@bach.graphics.cornell.edu
Subject: test
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 99 16:37:36 -0500
From: Me <me@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
X-Mts: smtp


bar

-----------------

Anybody here know how to get 8.9.1 to do the right thing?

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 14:51:18 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA18887; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id OAA18877 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:29:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bigtime.blank.org (bigtime.blank.org [139.167.64.222]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id MAA17314 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 12:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 31085 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 1999 20:52:22 -0000
Message-ID: <19990324155222.Y1001@blank.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:52:22 -0500
From: "Nathan J. Mehl" <memory@blank.org>
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>,
        Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
References: <v0311070eb31e0c1fa3c3@[207.252.88.49]> <199903241551.AA136310715@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
In-Reply-To: <199903241551.AA136310715@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>; from Mitch Collinsworth on Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 10:51:55AM -0500
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

In the immortal words of Mitch Collinsworth (mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU):
> 
> I might be missing something but what could you do with the telnet
> interface that you can't do with dig or nslookup?  (both CLI)

Er, you're missing quite a bit.  whois != dns.

Compare "dig blank.org ns"

	;; QUERY SECTION:
	;;      blank.org, type = NS, class = IN
	
	;; ANSWER SECTION:
	blank.org.              2D IN NS        NETSYS.COM.
	blank.org.              2D IN NS        CLUNK.NCRI.COM.
	blank.org.              2D IN NS        LBO.LEFTBANK.COM.
	
	;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
	NETSYS.COM.             2D IN A         199.201.233.10
	CLUNK.NCRI.COM.         2D IN A         206.34.194.253
	LBO.LEFTBANK.COM.       2D IN A         192.31.227.130

with "whois blank.org"

	Registrant:
	The Blanks (BLANK3-DOM)
	P.O. Box 2033
	Jamaica Plain, MA 02130

	Domain Name: BLANK.ORG
	
	Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
	Mehl, Nathan J  (NJM6)  memory-nic@BLANK.ORG
	Billing Contact:
	Mehl, Nathan J  (NJM6)  memory-nic@BLANK.ORG

	Record last updated on 02-May-96.
	Database last updated on 23-Mar-99 08:53:40 EST.

-n
-n

------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
     Well, Mister President, it's the bees and the spiders again...
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------


From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 15:55:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA20040; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cybercorp.net (www.cybercorp.net [207.112.30.80]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA20025 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:45:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (rhiggins@localhost)
	by cybercorp.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA11263;
	Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:53:49 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:53:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dr. Rob Higgins" <rhiggins@cybercorp.net>
Reply-To: "Dr. Rob Higgins" <rhiggins@cybercorp.net>
To: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
cc: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>,
        "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
In-Reply-To: <v0311070db31ece203f10@[207.252.88.49]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990324184022.11172A-100000@cybercorp.net>
Organization: CyberCorp Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Vince Sabio wrote:

> 
> Are we somehow getting bogged down in minutia and failing to see that

"Minutia" is important too :)

Vince seems to be talking about telnet access directly to
a restricted shell on rs.internic.net that provided access to
the "whois" command there. Apparently this telnet access is being
discontinued (probably a good idea for security reasons).

Ron and Mitch may be thinking of using the "whois" command
from their local machines (desk or servers) to access the remote whois
database server via port 43 (a service that still seems to be there).

whois gives much more info about the domain owner than
does nslookup or dig.

whois also gives access to the "contact" database which can be
searched for "handles" such as RNH or JB3243  (guess which 
has been in the db longer? :)

---rob---  %% virted, soho-can & webmaster-l list facilitator %%

 Dr.Robert N. Higgins Ph.D. |          ~ ~ ~ GYMNASIA VIRTUALES ~ ~ ~
      CyberCorp Inc.        |      GymVCOW - http://www.cybercorp.net/COW
  rhiggins@cybercorp.net    |    GymVMOO - http://www.cybercorp.net/GymVMOO
 http://www.cybercorp.net   |   GymVCourses - http://www.cybercorp.net/gymv




From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 17:23:19 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA21247; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:18:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA21228 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:22:02 -0500
Message-Id: <v0311071db31f3cfa55d1@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990324184022.11172A-100000@cybercorp.net>
References: <v0311070db31ece203f10@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:21:38 -0500
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

** Sometime around 18:53 -0500 03/24/99, Dr. Rob Higgins sent everyone:

>Vince seems to be talking about telnet access directly to
>a restricted shell on rs.internic.net that provided access to
>the "whois" command there.

Well, let's see what he said:

>.... The whois telnet server at rs.internic.net is
>history, though distributed whois is still available.

Yup, I'd say your guess was dead on target, Rob. ;-)

>Apparently this telnet access is being
>discontinued (probably a good idea for security reasons).

They obviously need better security then.      *grumble*

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^        ^^^^^^^
This is not intended to be entirely serious    this part *is*
                                               intended to be
                                               serious
NOTE:
These flashcards for the humour impaired have been included as
a public service at no charge to you, the recipient. They are
compatible with all the popular MUAs, and can be purchased from
your local computer store or catalog retailer. Void where
prohibited by law. Must be 18 years of age.

;-)

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 17:39:43 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA21521; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA21513 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA02356; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA31435;
	Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:48:42 -0800
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: sendmail -f 
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:56:21 -0500.
             <199903242156.AA141332581@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:48:42 -0800
Message-ID: <31433.922326522@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <199903242156.AA141332581@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>, 
Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU> wrote:

>Anybody here know how to get 8.9.1 to do the right thing?

Try this alias instead.  It might work.  I think it will.

foo:	"|/usr/bin/tail +2 | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -fowner-foo foo-out"

-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 18:10:11 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA21451; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:29:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vjs.telephonet.com (vjs.telephonet.com [207.252.88.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA21444 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [207.252.88.49] (207.252.88.49) by vjs.telephonet.com with ESMTP
 (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.2); Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:33:16 -0500
Message-Id: <v0311071fb31f41555c60@[207.252.88.49]>
In-Reply-To: <v0311071db31f3cfa55d1@[207.252.88.49]>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.990324184022.11172A-100000@cybercorp.net>
 <v0311070db31ece203f10@[207.252.88.49]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Organization: Little to None
X-Mailer: Eudora 4.0 for Cray T3E-1200
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:33:10 -0500
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Crap! I sent out the non-serious parts, and then forgot to include
the *content*. I'll get it straight one of these days ...


** Sometime around 20:21 -0500 03/24/99, Vince Sabio alzheimered upon us:
>** Sometime around 18:53 -0500 03/24/99, Dr. Rob Higgins sent everyone:
>
>>Vince seems to be talking about telnet access directly to
>>a restricted shell on rs.internic.net that provided access to
>>the "whois" command there.
>
>Well, let's see what he said:

(Let's not, and say we did.)

Apparently, NetSol's slick move did not go unnoticed by the U.S gummint:

  "Network Solutions getting heat over re-directing web directory visitors"
  <http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/001971.htm>

It'll be interesting to watch this one play out. Sounds as if NetSol
might actually be in breach of contract. <heh>

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
vince@humournet.com            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>



From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 24 18:30:16 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA21540; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tymix.Tymnet.COM (tymix.tymnet.com [131.146.2.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id RAA21531 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:39:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by tymix.Tymnet.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA06203; Wed, 24 Mar 99 17:41:23 PST
Received: from tardis
	by Tymnet.COM (in.smtpd); 24 Mar  0 17:41:22 PDT
Received: from romana.Tymnet.COM by tardis.Tymnet.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA26447; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:41:14 -0800
Received: from romana by romana.Tymnet.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA00329; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:41:15 -0800
Message-Id: <199903250141.RAA00329@romana.Tymnet.COM>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:41:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Smith <jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Reply-To: Joe Smith <jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Subject: Re: InterNIC is History
To: mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU, vince@humournet.com
Cc: rfg@monkeys.com, List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Md5: 8iPgfqazRiD2rLxF2j954g==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.0 CDE Version 1.2 SunOS 5.6 sun4m sparc 
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I found this in a newsgroup:

Subject: Re: InterNIC - Network Solutions
Summary: an asshole by any other name ...
Date: 24 Mar 1999 15:57:12 GMT

| > Apparently telneting to whois.internic.net doesn't work anymore.
|
| The service you're referring to no longer exists.
|
| You can 'telnet' to whois.internic.net:43 for access to whois, but
| it's the same service you get using 'whois'.  That other service
| where you'd get the "InterNIC> " prompt has been shutdown, probably
| forever.
|
| > The rs.internic.net website goes to www.networksolutions.com now
| > and doesn't mention much about this.
|
| Network Solutions took the InterNIC website down on Saturday without
| notice. They do not plan on ever putting it back up. It's gone!
|
| Apparently, Network Solutions is preparing for the competitive
| registry marketplace that's coming next month. They're capitalizing
| on "internic.net" for their commercial enterprises.
|
| For a timetable of what's coming see
| <http://www.icann.org/timeline.html>.
|
| For some insight on the grand scheme of things, check out Gordan
| Cook's take at <http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html>.
|
| The InterNIC ftp site is still up. I just grabbed copies of all the
| templates in case they take it down also.
|
| Maybe they changed the IP address of the website. Does anyone have
| older and different addresses for "www", "rs", or "whois"?

It seems that there is alot of flak being generated by the high-handed
sequence of events that the InterNIC and NetSol assholes have embarked
upon.

Earlier today, the following message was posted to the lynx-dev mailing-
list:

 > From: Philip Webb <purslow@chass.utoronto.ca>
 > To: lynx-dev@sig.net
 > Subject: lynx-dev NS story (ungarbled)
 > Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:56:11 -0500 (EST)
 > Message-Id: <199903241456.JAA09863@chass.utoronto.ca>
 >
 > AP tu 990323 1938
 >
 > Web Management Co Raises Feds' Ire -- TED BRIDIS
 >
 > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The company selected by the US government that assigns
 > most of the World's Internet addresses made a surprise move to steer
 > customers of an important WWW directory to its private commercial site:
 > "We're very concerned", said Commerce Dept administrator Becky Burr: "This
 > was undertaken without consultation with the US government".  People trying
 > to visit the `Internic' directory -- which checks availability of a new WWW
 > address --  > are being sent to Network Solutions' home page, which offers
 > to register Internet addresses with  .com  .net  or  .org  suffixes for
 > $119.  The information is still free, but one must go thro' the commercial
 > site to see it.
 >
 > The government, in the middle of largely ending management of the Internet,
 > is upset, since the directory has traditionally been a community resource
 > -- like a giant WWW phone book -- & `Internic' is a US-govt owned trademark:
 > "This information has been freely available to the Internet community for a
 > long time: if there is a reason to change that, we need to be consulted".
 > It illustrates the difficulty of having private industry run the WWW,
 > which is becoming the most crucial communications medium for the digital
 > age.
 >
 > The change occurred unexpectedly last Friday & infuriated some Internet
 > groups: 100's e-mailed the Commerce Dept: "We're entering a very uncertain
 > period", said Jay Fenello, president, Iperdome: "There are serious questions
 > how this transition will move forward & this is just a symptom".
 >
 > Network Solutions (Herndon VA) has enjoyed a lucrative exclusive agreement
 > with the US government since 1993 to register most of the World's addresses;
 > it has registered  > 4 M  sites & had  $ 93,7 M  sales 1998.  Its decision
 > comes days before a new organization selects  5  companies to compete with
 > it: "They're trying to get as much visibility as they can for as long as
 > they can", complained William Walsh, DSO Net (Fresno CA): "They're going to
 > brand their registrar service `Internic' before there are even other
 > registrars that could compete.  It may be legal, but it speaks of ethical
 > problems".
 >
 > Spokesman Chris Clough said Internic directory is legally a customer list
 > owned by Network Solutions, which decided to consolidate several sites,
 > incl Internic, to anticipate changes in Internet management.
 >
 > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN, CA) has assumed
 > most Internet management responsibilities from the US government & is
 > expected to select  5  new registration companies Worldwide next week.  Its
 > president Michael Roberts & chairwoman Esther Dyson did not respond to phone
 > calls.

Seems like the Department of Commerce is the proper entity to complain to
about the miscreants that are making this unilateral decision, if one were
of a mind to complain about it, that is ... :-) ...

/kim

============================================================================
"We create the government that screws you, and then you're supposed to thank
 us for protecting you from it."   --Congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn)

------- end of quoted message -------


Joe Smith    MCI WorldCom, Network Management, Product Technical Support
UNIX and Tech Sup: TYMNET Network, Xstream Packet Services (Public X.25)
<Joe.Smith@mci.com>       2560 N 1st St, MS-5046/746, San Jose, CA 95131
Voice: vnet 854-6220 = 408-922-6220    Fax: vnet 854-6702 = 408-922-6702


From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 02:18:17 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA28772; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dewey.mindlink.net (dewey.mindlink.net [204.174.16.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA28757 for <List-Managers@greatcircle.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:06:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from l006.abb.dial.paralynx.net ([204.174.29.134] helo=Main)
	by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #4)
	id 10Q75W-0005x4-00
	for List-Managers@greatcircle.com; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:10:11 -0800
From: "Mally" <nemesis@paralynx.com>
To: List-Managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:11:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: bulk mailing
In-reply-to: <002801be7626$f1570780$8fa4b6c3@travels>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Message-Id: <E10Q75W-0005x4-00@dewey.mindlink.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> Hi there,

Hi  :)
 
> I am trying to find information about how to do multiple mailouts from MS
> outlook. I know that I can have a personal address book in Outlook, but I
> do not want each recipient to receive a mail with other people's addresses
> listed, and I would also like to import the list from a file. Do I need to
> buy a list management package to do this?

I'm a bit biased about MS Outlook I'm afraid.  :)   Most of my members use it, 
but I stick to Pegasus - it's excellent and it's *freeware*.

Pegasus allows you to create distribution lists - very easy to do.  Just 
download your "Who" list and put it into a distribution list.  Using a DL 
allows only the individual's address for each mail to be seen.

> I would be grateful for any advice
> 
> Thanks

Hope that's the help you were looking for?  Er....   Just thought I'd mention 
that Pegasus' inventor will sue the dickens out of anyone using Pegasus for 
spamming.  <g>

Mally  :)

 

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 02:29:38 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id CAA28778; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dewey.mindlink.net (dewey.mindlink.net [204.174.16.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id CAA28755 for <List-Managers@greatcircle.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:06:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from l006.abb.dial.paralynx.net ([204.174.29.134] helo=Main)
	by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #4)
	id 10Q75V-0005x4-00
	for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:10:09 -0800
From: "Mally" <nemesis@paralynx.com>
To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:11:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: list attacks 
References: Your message of Thu, 18 Mar 1999 22:21:25 -0600.             <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org> 
In-reply-to: <25591.921832594@monkeys.com>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Message-Id: <E10Q75V-0005x4-00@dewey.mindlink.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> 
> In message <3.0.5.32.19990318222125.00809100@spunge.org>, you wrote:
> 
> >Hello
> >
> >one of the sites that I run majordomo (1.94.3 on one, and 1.94.4 on the
> >other) seems to be egtting hit his mass-subscribes. No, not the type
> >where a lot of people are subscribed, but rather where 1 person attempts
> >to join all the lists at a site.
> 
> It is probably somebody trying to subscription bomb somebody else.
> 
> You should secure all of your lists with an up-front subscription con-
> firmation process (done via E-mail) in order to to minimize the damage to
> the bombed party.

I run my list with subscribe set at "closed+confirm", refuse to accept any 
remail addresses without a legitimate ISP address that I can send a confirm 
respond email to (admin keeps that address confidential - but I can get full 
headers that way).  And the "Who" list is locked.  A nuisance, but it keeps the 
spammers and trolls away.  "Sam Spade" s/w is very useful too.  ;)  We may lose 
some would be members because it all seems very confusing and time consuming, 
but it sure helps keep the peace.  :)

Got a remail sub request a couple of days ago, sent the form letter saying we 
needed a legitimate address and was given one from mail.mty.itesm.mx (a 
university I gather).  The confirm respond request never got returned from that 
one.  Hmmm.....

Mally  :)

> 
> -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies,
> Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo:
> http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) -
> demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/
> 
>     "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
>                                      -- Steve Atkins


 

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 09:23:47 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA05471; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA05464 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA156662490; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:21:31 -0500
Message-Id: <199903251721.AA156662490@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: sendmail -f 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:48:42 PST."
             <31433.922326522@monkeys.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:21:30 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>>Anybody here know how to get 8.9.1 to do the right thing?
>
>Try this alias instead.  It might work.  I think it will.
>
>foo:	"|/usr/bin/tail +2 | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -fowner-foo foo-out"

Ok, remarkably enough this does work, which means the blank line
is getting prepended to the message _before_ it is passed to the
command in the alias.

Surely there's a way to prevent the blank line from happening in the
first place.  I find it hard to believe that everyone running a recent
version of sendmail is adding tail +2 to all their list aliases.
Or do programs like majordomo's 'wrapper' check for this and do it
if needed?

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 10:26:51 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA06279; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ns1.foothill.net (ns1.foothill.net [206.170.175.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06263 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:10:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com (rfg.foothill.net [207.212.142.41]) by ns1.foothill.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA25346; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:15:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from monkeys.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by monkeys.com (8.9.1/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA27272;
	Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:22:14 -0800
To: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: sendmail -f 
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:21:30 -0500.
             <199903251721.AA156662490@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> 
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:22:13 -0800
Message-ID: <27270.922386133@monkeys.com>
X-Deadbolt-Note: Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter, Version 0.96
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


In message <199903251721.AA156662490@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>, you wrote:

>
>>>Anybody here know how to get 8.9.1 to do the right thing?
>>
>>Try this alias instead.  It might work.  I think it will.
>>
>>foo:	"|/usr/bin/tail +2 | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -fowner-foo foo-out"
>
>Ok, remarkably enough this does work, which means the blank line
>is getting prepended to the message _before_ it is passed to the
>command in the alias.

No.  Not a blank line.

The first line that sendmail will write to any command that you invoke via
/etc/aliases will (unless you have hacked up your sendmail.cf file to do
something odd) be an "envelope From_" line... in other words a line that
starts with the word "From" followed by a single blank space, and then
followed by the sender's address and then a blank and then the date/time.

Any message that has such a line at the start of it is considred to be in
what is commonly known as "standard UNIX mailbob/maildrop format".

That's swell, if you are going to append what sendmail give to your command
to some standard format UNIX mailbox/maildrop file, but that is NOT at all
what YOU were doing with this stuff.  In your case, you were handing this
stuff off to a new and different instance of sendmail.

That new and different instance of sendmail was expecting to see a set of
standard *mail headers* at the start of the text you were feeding it on
its stdin... in other words a set of lines, each of which contained a
sequence of non-rfc822-special characters FOLLOWED BY A COLON and then
perhaps followed by some other stuff.

Instead, the first line is saw was the envelope From_ line.  That line
*does not* qualify as a mail header.  (Sendmail tried to parse that, got down
to the first blank space after the "From", and said ``Hey!  What the hay!
This ain't no mail header!  It must be the start of body text. I'll make
up a complete set of header myself and prepend those.)

The revised alias definition I gave you just slices off that initial envelope
from line, so that it won't be the to confuse the instance of sendmail you
invoke within the alias definition.

>Surely there's a way to prevent the blank line from happening in the
>first place.

I believe that there probably _is_ a way to prevent the initial *envelope
From* line from being generated when and if sendmail is trying to "deliver"
a message to a program.  Read the part about "mailer options" in the Bat
Book or in the Sendmail op.ps document.  BUT I'LL BET THAT YOU DO NOT WANT
TO CHANGE THIS.  If you change this option for your "prog" mailer, you will
very likely be breaking some other things elsewhere.  So if I were you, I
wouldn't even try it.  Just use the revised alias I gave you.

>I find it hard to believe that everyone running a recent
>version of sendmail is adding tail +2 to all their list aliases.

Hardly anyone is taking messages that sendmail is trying to deliver, locally,
and then trying to pipe those *back* into sendmail again!  (And even _you_
probably don't _have_ to do this.  If you knew how to hack Sendmail rulesets
well enough... a skill which even I myself do not have... then you could pro-
bably do everything you want to do _without_ even invoking a second instance
of sendmail.)

>Or do programs like majordomo's 'wrapper' check for this and do it
>if needed?

Beats me.  I are not a Majordomo hack.


-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc.
-- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/
-- Wpoison (web harvester poisoning) - demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/

    "Ping can be used offensively, and it's shipped with every windows CD"
                                                  -- Steve Atkins

From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 14:45:03 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA09414; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:24:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA09399 for <List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA163320861; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:27:42 -0500
Message-Id: <199903252227.AA163320861@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: sendmail -f 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:22:13 PST."
             <27270.922386133@monkeys.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:27:41 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk



>>I find it hard to believe that everyone running a recent
>>version of sendmail is adding tail +2 to all their list aliases.
>
>Hardly anyone is taking messages that sendmail is trying to deliver, locally,
>and then trying to pipe those *back* into sendmail again!

Ok, believe it or not, out of all that typing [deleted], this was
the clue I needed.  As stated earlier I'm upgrading from a (rather
old) version of sendmail.  Believe it or not, in the good old days,
aliases of the form:
     list:       "|/usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-list list-out"

were the standard method of re-writing the envelope from address.
There are plenty of other dinosaurs here that will back me up on
this.  What I was missing is that recent versions of sendmail will
do this for you, without the pipe to sendmail -f , merely due to
the presence of an 'owner-list' alias.  Old dog.  New trick.  Catching
on slowly.


>>Or do programs like majordomo's 'wrapper' check for this and do it
>>if needed?
>
>Beats me.  I are not a Majordomo hack.

Turns out wrapper doesn't, but resend does strip "From " headers.

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Thu Mar 25 14:55:00 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA09638; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:44:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA09631 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (LOCALHOST) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA163712129; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:48:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199903252248.AA163712129@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: "Andy Finkenstadt" <andyf@simutronics.com>
Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: Re: sendmail -f 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:46:29 CST."
             <000101be7708$f1a1a960$37cc53c6@af.simutronics.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:48:49 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


>Isn't this because of the flags on the Mprog mailer that says to output a
>"From_" line, which on entry to another sendmail process forces sendmail to
>insert a blank line in front of the headers it didn't see?  If so, this is
>why tail+2 is needed, and why wrapper (majordomo, really) doesn't... it
>spawns sendmail and submits ONLY headers down the pipe.

A-ha!  There is indeed a mailer flag, F=n, that means "Don't add a
UNIX-style From header"  (what the sendmail people call that initial
"From " header).

(wrapper just passes stdin to stdout after checking various items
for security issues.  resend calls sendmail and does strip the
leading "Mail " header.  Which is why MD doesn't run into this
problem.  But remember, we're not talking about MD on this list.  :-)

-Mitch


From list-managers-owner  Fri Mar 26 11:09:36 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA27519; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:54:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id KAA27511 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 26 Mar 1999 10:54:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway.simutronics.com (gateway.simutronics.com [198.83.204.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA08893 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:43:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from af.simutronics.com (andy.finkenstadt.com [198.83.204.55])
	by gateway.simutronics.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA12516;
	Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:46:51 -0600
From: "Andy Finkenstadt" <andyf@simutronics.com>
To: "'Mitch Collinsworth'" <mkc@Graphics.Cornell.EDU>
Cc: <list-managers@greatcircle.com>
Subject: RE: sendmail -f 
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:46:29 -0600
Message-ID: <000101be7708$f1a1a960$37cc53c6@af.simutronics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
In-Reply-To: <199903251721.AA156662490@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Isn't this because of the flags on the Mprog mailer that says to output a
"From_" line, which on entry to another sendmail process forces sendmail to
insert a blank line in front of the headers it didn't see?  If so, this is
why tail+2 is needed, and why wrapper (majordomo, really) doesn't... it
spawns sendmail and submits ONLY headers down the pipe.

I use procmail's formail -s instead of tail+2, myself, since it works no
matter what the flags are for the Mprog mailer entry (if using sendmail) or
with smail, or local.mail, and so on.

Andy


-----Original Message-----
From:	list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
[mailto:list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM] On Behalf Of Mitch Collinsworth
Sent:	Thursday, March 25, 1999 11:22 AM
To:	Ronald F. Guilmette
Cc:	List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM; mkc@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu
Subject:	Re: sendmail -f


>>Anybody here know how to get 8.9.1 to do the right thing?
>
>Try this alias instead.  It might work.  I think it will.
>
>foo:	"|/usr/bin/tail +2 | /usr/sbin/sendmail -oi -fowner-foo foo-out"

Ok, remarkably enough this does work, which means the blank line
is getting prepended to the message _before_ it is passed to the
command in the alias.

Surely there's a way to prevent the blank line from happening in the
first place.  I find it hard to believe that everyone running a recent
version of sendmail is adding tail +2 to all their list aliases.
Or do programs like majordomo's 'wrapper' check for this and do it
if needed?

-Mitch



From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 00:13:44 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA26968; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.svr.pol.co.uk (mail2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA26961 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from modem-65.copper.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.14.65] ident=cc047)
	by mail2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 10RtYr-0001II-00
	for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:07:50 +0100
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:07:46 +0100 (BST)
From: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
X-Sender: cc047@arpad.thegreen.private
Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Subject: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other) practices
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

I am sure this must be a Frequently Asked Question, but I didn't find it
in the FAQ.  I did a very quick scan of some months of the archives, but
didn't see it (but it was a very quick scan, if the archives were
searchable, I probably wouldn't be asking this here).

I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer users
to about particular policies,  The policies in quesiton are

  (1) Quoting entire message being replied to
  (2) Doing (1) by sticking the quoted message at the end
  (3) Posting multipart/alternative messages.

I attempt to filter these on some unmoderated lists I manage, and am
suddenly getting swamped with newer MUAs that seem to do this sort of
stuff by default.  I would like a document (or documents) that explain why
these are bad things for discussion lists, and also explain who to
configure the MUA to behave less obnoxiously.

Please, I am not trying to debate whether these are bad practices.  I
consider them bad practice for my list, and would like documents that
basically articulate that view (while the view is not universal, I suspect
that I am far from alone).

-j

-- 
Jeffrey Goldberg                +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826
 Cranfield Computer Centre      FAX         751 814
 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk     http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice.


From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 07:28:12 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA04173; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA04166 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default (pem-41.swva.net [208.140.224.153])
	by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA28843
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:20:51 -0500
Message-Id: <199903301520.KAA28843@ctc.swva.net>
From: "Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:20:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other) practices
Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

On 30 Mar 99, at 9:07, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer users
> to about particular policies,  The policies in quesiton are
> 
>   (1) Quoting entire message being replied to
>   (2) Doing (1) by sticking the quoted message at the end
>   (3) Posting multipart/alternative messages.

(1) and (2) are dealt with in RFC 1855, which amidst a wealth of good 
advice and general good sense says:

    3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews 

    - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
      summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just
      enough text of the original to give a context.  This will make
      sure readers understand when they start to read your response.
      Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the
      postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a
      response to a message before seeing the original.  Giving context
      helps everyone.  But do not include the entire original!

[Begin rant]

This "modern style", which I find constantly counterproductive and 
irritating, of having the messasge *begin* with the reply, and then have 
a copy of the -entirety- of the original message seems to be a side 
effect of the merging of the email world with the business world [you can 
guess whose clients started doing this].

In the business world in the "old days" (probably still in places where 
the primary means of information-moving-around is on paper), when there 
was an onoing discussion/account/whatever folks would write memos and 
send and recieve letters and faxes and you didn't 'cite' the original (in 
a medium that doesn't really admit of 'cut and paste' or the auto-copy 
machinery of the standard reply, you learned to write more carefully and 
(as you probably learned in school but have forgotten) used techniques 
like "embed the question implicitly in the reply" and such...)

What you did was had an actual physical folder and you put your memo to 
add to the thread on the top of the pile of previous documents, reports, 
receipts, court orders, etc, etc, and it went into the cabinet until 
something else happened --- when a new bit of correspondence came in 
[e.g., by fax or USmail or a returned phone call or whatever], you'd just 
open the folder, put the new stuff on top of the pile [making the pile be 
reverse-chronological order], and yes indeed, if someone new joined the 
project or picked up the account, they would have to read the pile of 
paper bottom-to-top, riffling through].

The obnoxious reply-style is the adaptation of that to the electronic 
medium.  The fact that it makes no sense, is counterproductive, makes it 
hard/impossible to follow a discussion doesn't matter, of course [the 
'riffling' is very hard [at least for me] electronically: it is one thing 
to lift up a sheet of paper to see the correspondence right below it, 
quite another [IMO] to page-down-page-down-page-down to sift through the 
headers and irrelevancia to find the original inquiry, then page-up-page-
up-...etc.. to get back to the reply (and if something wasn't clear, then 
it is page-down-... and then back up, all over again to check the 
referenced note).  AND: unlike paper originals, electronic originals can 
live on file servers in shared mail folders, so if you properly 
"excerpted" and included quotes from a prior message and someone needed 
to see the whole thing, they could easily just fetch a copy.  Not to 
mention that the emails get more and more unwiedly, as each carries along 
EVERY previous message in the thread...

Of course, it is easy on the author: they've *just* read the previous 
message, it is fresh in their mind, and so they can just dash off the 
reply "That's sounds fine, let me know when it is ready"...  the fact 
that this makes it ugly for the *reader* [*what* sounds fine?  Am I doing 
it or was I just cc'ed and is someone else?  What's going on???] isn't an 
issue: you all know that the first rule of good writing is "What's 
easiest for the author is most important; damn the readers".

[yes, this is a hotbutton issue for me... could you tell??  :o)]

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--          

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 09:33:21 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA05323; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:17:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA05316 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:16:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from solva.ifi.uio.no (1368@solva.ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.20])
	by ifi.uio.no (8.8.8/8.8.7/ifi0.2) with SMTP id TAA22496
	for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:21:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from thomasg@localhost) by solva.ifi.uio.no ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:21:27 +0200
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:21:23 +0200
From: Thomas Gramstad <thomasg@ifi.uio.no>
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other) practices
In-Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>'s message of Tue,
        30 Mar 1999 09:07:46 +0100 (BST)
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Message-ID: <MM.922814483.7548.solva@ifi.uio.no>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can
> refer users to about particular policies, ...

>   (3) Posting multipart/alternative messages.

I use the following standard response, with links to two such
documents:

---

Your message was coded in html, instead of the plain text format.
Please turn off html coding in future messages to me or to mailing
lists.  See instructions about this at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/listowners/html-off.htm or
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1236/nomime.html.

---

Thomas Gramstad
thomasg@ifi.uio.no

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 17:51:31 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA11122; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dewey.mindlink.net (dewey.mindlink.net [204.174.16.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA11115 for <list-managers@greatcircle.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from l006.abb.dial.paralynx.net ([204.174.29.134] helo=Main)
	by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #5)
	id 10S9wm-00006J-00
	for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:37:36 -0800
From: "Mally" <nemesis@paralynx.com>
To: list-managers@greatcircle.com
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:38:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other) practices
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Message-Id: <E10S9wm-00006J-00@dewey.mindlink.net>
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk


~~~~snip~~~~
 
> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer users
> to about particular policies,  The policies in quesiton are
> 
>   (1) Quoting entire message being replied to
>   (2) Doing (1) by sticking the quoted message at the end
>   (3) Posting multipart/alternative messages.

~~~~another snip~~~

> Please, I am not trying to debate whether these are bad practices.  I
> consider them bad practice for my list, and would like documents that
> basically articulate that view (while the view is not universal, I suspect
> that I am far from alone).

Snipping is an ongoing problem and one that seems very hard to get people to 
do.  What I did was to put the following in both the Intro (that gets sent to all 
new subscribers automatically) & in a FAQ that gets posted approx. every two 
weeks):

"Since many people have either limited access time allotted, or pay for
download time, it would be most helpful if parts of the message you're
replying to were snipped, so that only the key points are left. At the
very least, the footer at the bottom of the message should be snipped,
so that it's not duplicated. Lack of snipping also makes the digest
version much more difficult to read through, and adds unnecessary 
lines of text. This is just a suggestion to be helpful to others,
nothing more."

Also included:

"Only ASCII text posts should be sent to the mailing list, as attachment
files, pictures and other large files will bounce.  Smaller non-ASCII
text files may end up being converted into ASCII text, which can be
costly for many members to download."

I also have a statement in the Intro to the effect that by staying subscribed a new 
member has agreed to abide by the outlined rules and guidelines, if they disagree 
with them they must unsubscribe *now*.  That leaves me free to send a warning 
private email to an offending member which they are required to acknowledge 
within a given period of time, if they ignore that and/or continue to offend then 
they get unsubscribed.

A lot of folks in North America don't realize that most European countries' 
phone systems charge for local calls by the minute, which makes snipping - 
especially the multiple requoted posts from the whole thread - even more 
important, apart from nuisance it creates for everyone.

Hope that's of some use to you.

Mally  :)
 

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 17:56:44 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA11344; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA11336 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:50:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA35136
	; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:59:29 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04104806b3272f787f69@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:49:40 -0800
To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>,
        list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other)
 practices
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 9:07 AM +0100 3/30/99, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer users
> to about particular policies,  The policies in quesiton are

My list FAQs are available at www.lists.apple.com. It includes 
pointers to things I thought were relevant to the rules (and hints -- 
rules are considered mandatory, hints are considered semi-optional) I 
manage my lists to.

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Tue Mar 30 18:10:09 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id RAA11361; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id RAA11348 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:50:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from  (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged))
	by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26772
	; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:59:51 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <v04104806b3272f787f69@plaidworks.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.9903300856000.17923-100000@arpad.thegreen.private>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:49:40 -0800
To: Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk>,
        list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other)
 practices
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

At 9:07 AM +0100 3/30/99, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer users
> to about particular policies,  The policies in quesiton are

My list FAQs are available at www.lists.apple.com. It includes 
pointers to things I thought were relevant to the rules (and hints -- 
rules are considered mandatory, hints are considered semi-optional) I 
manage my lists to.

--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com)
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) 
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>

Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano!

From list-managers-owner  Wed Mar 31 20:28:49 1999
Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id TAA00409; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:47:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id TAA00401 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:47:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lios.gweep.bc.ca (a3a17164.sympatico.bconnected.net [209.53.11.73]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id KAA06140 for <list-managers@GreatCircle.COM>; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:33:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mornir.gweep.bc.ca (edmonds@mornir.gweep.bc.ca [192.168.2.2])
	by lios.gweep.bc.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA07759;
	Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:38:35 -0800
Received: (from edmonds@localhost)
	by mornir.gweep.bc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA00668;
	Tue, 30 Mar 1999 10:38:47 -0800
To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM
Subject: Re: User docs about good (and bad) quoting (and other) practices
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.4 #1 SMP Sat Mar 27 11:51:20 PST 1999
X-Homepage: http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/
X-PGP-Ox979D0B09: A9 3E 1E CB 86 09 B1 E9  3C 1A 0E F6 49 F9 5D 99
X-GPG-0xC3B9F092: 4349 B0FB 7921 D147 CF15  4DA2 0CD3 1422 C3B9 F092
Mail-Copies-To: never
From: Brian Edmonds <brian@gweep.bc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 30 Mar 1999 10:38:46 -0800
In-Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg's message of "Tue, 30 Mar 1999 09:07:46 +0100 (BST)"
Message-ID: <37emm69615.fsf@mornir.gweep.bc.ca>
Lines: 11
User-Agent: Gnus/5.07008 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.80) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald)
Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM
Precedence: bulk

Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk> writes:
> I am wondering if anyone has written up a document that I can refer
> users to about particular policies

My list etiquette FAQ probably covers most or all of what you're looking 
for.  Feel free to crib from it, or simply point your users at it.  I'm
sure others will also offer similar resources they've created.

 http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html

Brian.