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
Rece