From list-managers-owner Sat May 1 10:44:57 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA00110; Sat, 1 May 1999 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA00103 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 10:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aum (ip11.proper.com [165.227.249.11]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA25921; Sat, 1 May 1999 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.37.19990501102504.01de8c80@mail.imc.org> X-Sender: paulh@mail.imc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.37 (Beta) Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 10:26:46 -0700 To: Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Paul Hoffman / IMC Subject: Re: When lawyers run the internet In-Reply-To: References: <199904302309.TAA27330@sunspot.tiac.net> <199904302309.TAA27330@sunspot.tiac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 10:08 PM 4/30/99 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: >But I don't worry about it. but it IS, I think, another argument FOR >mail-back validation, because you have a nice proof that it wasn't >unsolicited or forged. Good point, but who keeps those around? Is a few lines (which doesn't include the "auth" part) in the Majordomo log good enough to "prove" validation? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium From list-managers-owner Sat May 1 11:14:57 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA00488; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA00476 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA32204 ; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:15:09 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990501102504.01de8c80@mail.imc.org> References: <199904302309.TAA27330@sunspot.tiac.net> <199904302309.TAA27330@sunspot.tiac.net> <4.2.0.37.19990501102504.01de8c80@mail.imc.org> Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:45:55 -0700 To: Paul Hoffman / IMC , Chuq Von Rospach , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: When lawyers run the internet Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Good point, but who keeps those around? Is a few lines (which doesn't > include the "auth" part) in the Majordomo log good enough to "prove" > validation? I think a verifiable process is good enough, actually, but I do also keep logs of all transactions (backed to tape) AND archival logs of all incoming e-mail. also backed to tape. So if it ever becomes really necessary, I can (in theory, if the backups are working right) find any piece of email ever sent to my system, including all received headers. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Featuring Winslow Leach at the Piano! From list-managers-owner Sat May 1 12:28:37 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01564; Sat, 1 May 1999 12:15:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA01556 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 1 May 1999 12:15:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 NAA16276 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from claude.akamai.com (crabcake.akamai.com [10.10.123.10]) by crabcake.akamai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA12429; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:46:26 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.akamai.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA01285; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:46:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:46:25 -0400 From: David Shaw To: support@topica.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Topica - I give up Message-ID: <19990430164625.A1264@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: support@topica.com, list-managers@greatcircle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i 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 Full X-Current-Email-Backlog: 326 X-Pointless-Random-Number: 95 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. X-Time-Til-Y2K: 35 weeks, 0 days, 8 hours, 19 minutes, 56 seconds Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Way back in February, I wrote you to inform you that for whatever reason, I could not modify my list information in your database. The information you have is wrong, which is causing mail to go to the wrong machine here. You can't seem to fix it, nor do you even bother to answer my mail any longer. I give up. You win. Please remove any and all lists hosted on lists.jabberwocky.com from your system. David ----- Forwarded message from David Shaw ----- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:15:20 -0500 From: David Shaw To: support@topica.com Subject: RE: Problems... (fwd) X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i 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 (53% of Full) X-Current-Email-Backlog: 229 X-Pointless-Random-Number: 9 X-Silly-Header: It sure is. X-Time-Til-Y2K: 36 weeks, 1 days, 3 hours, 46 minutes, 2 seconds Hi, It's been two whole months since the exchange below. The problem isn't fixed yet. Please either fix it or remove my list completely. I don't have time for this. David ----- Forwarded message from "support@get.topica.com" ----- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:57:19 -0800 To: David Shaw Subject: RE: Problems... From: "support@get.topica.com" Reply-To: "support@get.topica.com" X-Mailer: Kana Customer Messaging System 3.0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by commedia.cnds.jhu.edu id PAA05455 X-Keywords: X-UID: 86 X-Status: F Hi David, Thanks for the heads up! The broken font issue will be forwarded accordingly. As for your list address problem, I will forward this information to our directory team for correction. For any other issues of this nature such as a correction or a request to have your list placed in a particular category please send an email to directory@get.topica.com. Thanks for your input, don't hesitate to contact us with any other questions and/or suggestions. Have a good day! Jeremy Monsayac =) Customer Rep Topica Inc. My favorite topic: music ____________________________________________ Explore your favorite topic - http://www.topica.com Original message follows: ------------------------- Hiya, I have a few problems with Topica.. one is that at least under Unix, your fonts are completely broken. Whatever font you did everything in, it doesn't exist under X11 by default so the user gets a bitmapped approximation. Add to that that the font *size* you used is more than a little tiny, it makes it impossible to read. I have been reading it by cutting and pasting text into another window. The other problem is with my list. The problem is that the list address is set to 'sex-wizards@jabberwocky.com' which is incorrect. The address should be 'sex-wizards@lists.jabberwocky.com', but your software won't let me change it. That is, I put in the change, and hit the button... and it changes it back when it puts up the confirmation screen. David ----- End forwarded message ----- -- 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 Sat May 1 14:29:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA02642; Sat, 1 May 1999 14:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gsp.org (rsk.itw.com [208.211.3.21]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA02635 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rsk@localhost) by gsp.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA25207 for list-managers@GreatCircle.COM; Sat, 1 May 1999 17:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 17:24:17 -0400 From: Rich Kulawiec To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: When lawyers run the internet Message-ID: <19990501172416.A25168@gsp.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.37.19990501102504.01de8c80@mail.imc.org>; from Paul Hoffman / IMC on Sat, May 01, 1999 at 10:26:46AM -0700 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 10:26:46AM -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote: > At 10:08 PM 4/30/99 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote: > >But I don't worry about it. but it IS, I think, another argument FOR > >mail-back validation, because you have a nice proof that it wasn't > >unsolicited or forged. > > Good point, but who keeps those around? Is a few lines (which doesn't > include the "auth" part) in the Majordomo log good enough to "prove" > validation? I do. I've had a few instances where people have jumped up and down screaming (well, okay figuratively) that they never subscribed and wouldn't subscribe and I had better remove them or they'd mailbomb the list, yadda yadda yadda. Oddly enough, *none* of them have ever replied again after I've forwarded them copies of the messages that they used to subscribe. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk@gsp.org From list-managers-owner Sat May 1 23:02:53 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA07166; Sat, 1 May 1999 22:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bouvreuil.cybercable.fr (bouvreuil.cybercable.fr [212.198.3.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA07137 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 22:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3007 invoked from network); 2 May 1999 07:52:05 +0200 Received: from d118.paris-178.cybercable.fr (HELO ?212.198.178.118?) (212.198.178.118) by bouvreuil.cybercable.fr with SMTP; 2 May 1999 05:52:05 -0000 X-Sender: dsharp@pop3.cybercable.fr Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 07:49:57 +0200 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: David Sharp Subject: Moderating and off-topic posts Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'd be interested in the opinions of list members - plus any hard data, if it exists - on the effects that off-topic posts can have on the overall functioning of a list. Also, any reflections on the types of policies a list moderator should apply regarding off-topic or trivial posts. I am co-moderator of a French language list for journalists (Jliste - ), where the problem keeps cropping up. A small number of contributors enjoy engaging in repartee via the list, generally on issues which have nothing much to do with the subject matter, which is journalism and the Internet. Occasional requests from the moderators for people to stay on-topic - which are generally sent privately, but sometimes via the list - elicit responses ranging in tone from "we don't give a damn," and "we could do without political commissars" to "don't take yourselves so seriously", and "we're just livening up the list, which is too boring." There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the majority of list members consider off-topic posts to be a turn-off, and that a certain number leave the list because of them. However the evidence remains anecdotal, because of course most people who unsubscribe don't bother to tell us why. Any ideas, advice and/or data on this issue? -- David Sharp, journaliste, France Tel (home) 331 42 64 35 94 - (office) 331 40 41 47 92 E-mail ICQ: 16881741 From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 05:36:46 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id FAA13211; Sun, 2 May 1999 05:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id FAA13204 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 05:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem-3.swva.net [208.140.224.115]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id IAA13025 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 08:12:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199905021212.IAA13025@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 08:11:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 2 May 99, at 7:49, David Sharp wrote: > I'd be interested in the opinions of list members - plus any hard data, if > it exists - on the effects that off-topic posts can have on the overall > functioning of a list. > > Also, any reflections on the types of policies a list moderator should > apply regarding off-topic or trivial posts. Well, IMO, one of the key roles of the moderator is to "enforce" the list's charter. If the charter states that the list has some specific purpose or is supposed to focus on some set of topics, then the moderator should *reject* the off topic stuff. > A small number of contributors enjoy engaging in repartee via the list, > generally on issues which have nothing much to do with the subject matter, > which is journalism and the Internet. But subscribers can't do that: the way you have to say this is "the moderators have been allowing a small number of contributors ...". If this kind of 'chat' is within the scope of the list charter, then you're stuck: you have to amend the charter, let the listmembers know, then you can enforce the new rules. If it is not, then the moderators (and the other listmembers!) have no one to blame *except*the*moderators*themselves*. > Occasional requests from the moderators for people to stay on-topic - which > are generally sent privately, but sometimes via the list - elicit responses > ranging in tone from "we don't give a damn," and "we could do without > political commissars" to "don't take yourselves so seriously", and "we're > just livening up the list, which is too boring." Get their attention more directly: don't just request via private email, send the request as part of a 'reject' message. If some folk think that the list is too boring, suggest that they subscribe to a joke-of-the-day mailing list or two and set their email filters to file your list-traffic and the j-o-t-d traffic into the same folder, and they can pretend it all came in from one list. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 06:22:01 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA13736; Sun, 2 May 1999 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 GAA13729 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT) 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 JAA05170; Sun, 2 May 1999 09:12:50 -0400 (EDT) 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 JAA24939; Sun, 2 May 1999 09:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03148; Sun, 2 May 1999 09:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:11:36 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: David Sharp cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 May 1999, David Sharp wrote: > I'd be interested in the opinions of list members - plus any hard > data, if it exists - on the effects that off-topic posts can have > on the overall functioning of a list. Even if I kept formal records of off-topic problems, data from any of my lists would not apply to your lists. As I have said before, policy and enforcement has to be appropriate for the particular mailing list. Some lists need very loose policies some lists should be very strict. The level of formality must be controlled by the individual list administrator. > A small number of contributors enjoy engaging in repartee ... I discourage personal exchanges on the list. Most of my lists specify on-topic posts. I encourage the use of private email for discussions which are not of general interest to most subscribers. I don't have much sympathy for off-topic threads. I may send a private warning to the author of an isolated off-topic post. If an off-topic post starts an ongoing off-topic thread, I'll post a public warning. There will always be a few subscribers who insist that they have the right to say anything, anywhere and anytime. In the US, the right to freedom of speech has never included the right to take over the forum of your choice as your own private platform. If your subscribers came to your mailing list to discuss a particular topic, it is reasonable to expect them to discuss the specified topic and not random issues. The subscribers who "don't give a damn" about your rules are at liberty to start their own forum. They are not at liberty to corrupt your mailing list to suit their personal desires. > There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the majority of list > members consider off-topic posts to be a turn-off ... Some admins open secondary "chat" versions of their mailing lists as an alternative channel for off-topic threads. Some admins send surveys to anyone who unsubscribes. As I said at the start, I don't have formal data. I doubt this issue lends itself to statistical analysis. You need to consider what is in the best interest of your subscribers at large. Do what is best for the whole list. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 08:05:49 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA14514; Sun, 2 May 1999 07:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from randomc.com (cluster1.nbank.net [207.15.208.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id HAA14507 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 07:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jaggers (pm-atl-2-117.nbank.net [209.195.11.117]) by randomc.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA15897; Sun, 2 May 1999 10:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990502094408.00a45450@mail.randomc.com> X-Sender: rjaggers@mail.randomc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 10:34:23 -0400 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: Rick Jaggers Subject: Re:Moderating and off-topic posts In-Reply-To: <199905020800.BAA08300@honor.greatcircle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 07:49:57 +0200 >From: David Sharp >Subject: Moderating and off-topic posts > >I'd be interested in the opinions of list members - plus any hard data, if >it exists - on the effects that off-topic posts can have on the overall >functioning of a list. (portions deleted for brevity) >Any ideas, advice and/or data on this issue? > >_______________________[ End ]_______________________ I had exactly the same problem, and I'd know by my dropout rate when too much drivel was being posted. However, a neat solution fell into my lap, and it has been surprisingly successful. (1) I created a companion mailing list. It is called the [HotTub] but other names may be equally effective "BackPorch", "Patio", "Veranda". (2) Participation in the [HotTub] is optional. * Subscription to the original list, [RixPlace], is a requirement. * The [HotTub] is announced and publicized only in [RixPlace]. * [RixPlace] has a Digest edition. The [HotTub] does not. (3) Any non-[RixPlace] topic is allowed in the [HotTub]. And they have run through an interesting set of topics, from rock-and-roll to gun control to just mindless chit-chat. (4) I drafted my most frequent off-topic offender as the [HotTub] host, solely responsible for subscriptions and content. The only hatchet I held was the ability to just turn it off. I do not meddle at all, and I beat up the draftee host on a regular basis when I see messages which require his attention. After a couple of months, my draftee host had a much greater appreciation for the work that I do . We now get along pretty well, and he even seeks my advice from time to time for errant Hottubbers. (5) Once a month or so a thread briefly appears in the [HotTub] that rightly belonged in [RixPlace]. If it gets very interesting, I suggest to the [HotTub] host that he nudge the thread back to [RixPlace]. The "argument" is that the author deserves a wider audience for his words. After the 3rd month I stopped worrying about it. (6) Hard data: 40% of [RixPlace] has joined the [HotTub]. It has stayed pretty consistent for the last 14 months. Less than 2% of [HotTub] subscribers have quit in disgust at the content. The volume of traffic in both lists is about the same. How does this work? Very well! I allow the first off-topic reply to remain in [RixPlace]. It depends on the daily traffic. If a thread digresses too far, then it is referred (banished?!) to the [HotTub]. Usually the established [RixPlace] subscribers will speak up before I do. The [HotTub] keeps me out of a "censorship" role, and I have not had that issue raised in [RixPlace] in a year. Rick Jaggers (mailto:Rick@RixPlace.com) http://www.rixplace.com ***** http://www.rixplace.com/Hottub From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 13:15:16 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA17327; Sun, 2 May 1999 13:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA17320 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihug.co.nz (p2-max7.wlg.ihug.co.nz [209.79.142.130]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA18390; Mon, 3 May 1999 08:07:54 +1200 Message-ID: <372CAFED.4CF2415C@ihug.co.nz> Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 08:05:05 +1200 From: Olwen Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Sharp , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk This happens the whole time on a list I run about obesity surgery. We have a parallel list just for chat. There are about 841 people on the main list as I write and 195 on the other list. Some people haven't liked the moderation policy and have gone of and started other lists. Our feeling is that with 840 people (and growing by the day) that we can't please everyone, and a lot of people like it as it is. One reason for moderating (apart from stopping flame wars) was that many people complained about the level of mail, and the off-topic posts. David Sharp wrote: > I'd be interested in the opinions of list members - plus any hard data, if > it exists - on the effects that off-topic posts can have on the overall > functioning of a list. > > Also, any reflections on the types of policies a list moderator should > apply regarding off-topic or trivial posts. > > I am co-moderator of a French language list for journalists (Jliste - > ), where the problem keeps cropping up. > > A small number of contributors enjoy engaging in repartee via the list, > generally on issues which have nothing much to do with the subject matter, > which is journalism and the Internet. > > Occasional requests from the moderators for people to stay on-topic - which > are generally sent privately, but sometimes via the list - elicit responses > ranging in tone from "we don't give a damn," and "we could do without > political commissars" to "don't take yourselves so seriously", and "we're > just livening up the list, which is too boring." > > There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the majority of list members > consider off-topic posts to be a turn-off, and that a certain number leave > the list because of them. However the evidence remains anecdotal, because > of course most people who unsubscribe don't bother to tell us why. > > Any ideas, advice and/or data on this issue? > > -- > David Sharp, journaliste, France > Tel (home) 331 42 64 35 94 - (office) 331 40 41 47 92 > E-mail ICQ: 16881741 From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 15:31:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id PAA18550; Sun, 2 May 1999 15:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id PAA18543 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 15:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23375 invoked by uid 100); 2 May 1999 18:17:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 18:17:46 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: David Sharp cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Occasional requests from the moderators for people to stay on-topic - which > are generally sent privately, but sometimes via the list - elicit responses > ranging in tone from "we don't give a damn," and "we could do without > political commissars" to "don't take yourselves so seriously", and "we're > just livening up the list, which is too boring." I'd put it more strongly than some of the other responses -- I would kick people off any list of mine if they said that. Someone's going to control each mailing list, and if it's not the list owner, it'll be the most unruly subscribers. It's certainly true that some lists hew closely to the nominal topic and some wander afield, but it's the list owner's call how far away it can go. If people are under the misimpression that they have a "right" to post stuff to your list, you can disabuse them of that easily enough. Dismal experience on several of the lists and newsgroups I run have made it clear to me that people who don't get the hint after two polite requests are incorrigible, and you might as well kick them off sooner rather than later. The suggestion of a companion list for the chit-chat is a reasonable one, and it's worked for me once or twice, but it's no substitute for keeping control of the primary list. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Sun May 2 18:45:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA23654; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:29:37 -0700 (PDT) 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 SAA23639 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee-nt (eckert@netcom16.netcom.com [192.100.81.129]) by kachina.jetcafe.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA28484; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990502180514.0097b850@pop.climber.org> X-Sender: eckert@pop.climber.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 18:05:14 -0700 To: Olwen Williams From: SRE Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM In-Reply-To: <372CAFED.4CF2415C@ihug.co.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 08:05 AM 5/3/99 +1200, Olwen Williams wrote: >people like it as it is. One reason for moderating (apart from stopping flame >wars) was that many people complained about the level of mail, and the >off-topic posts. Can you define "moderating"? Reading this thread, it seems that one who tries to keep the posts on topic (by pressuring the poster) is sometimes considered a moderator. I figure the list is not moderated if a post makes it to the subscribers without human approval. Is that what you meant? From list-managers-owner Mon May 3 00:04:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA00532; Sun, 2 May 1999 23:55:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA00520 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 23:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihug.co.nz (p33-max7.wlg.ihug.co.nz [209.79.142.161]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA06385; Mon, 3 May 1999 18:55:14 +1200 Message-ID: <372D47A1.63AEE2F1@ihug.co.nz> Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 18:52:19 +1200 From: Olwen Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SRE CC: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts References: <3.0.5.32.19990502180514.0097b850@pop.climber.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In this case I tend to refer to my list as "fully" moderated. We approve everything, and sometimes edit posts. We have a panel of 8 moderators currently to keep up with the work because we normally write polite messages to out susbscribers to tell them why we are rejecting posts. Before I put the list into full-time moderation I did turn it on once or twice for short times, and I did use to play peacemaker and mother when things got out of hand. At that point I referred to myself as the list-owner, and the person who lent a hand referred to herself as co-listmom SRE wrote: > At 08:05 AM 5/3/99 +1200, Olwen Williams wrote: > >people like it as it is. One reason for moderating (apart from stopping flame > >wars) was that many people complained about the level of mail, and the > >off-topic posts. > > Can you define "moderating"? Reading this thread, it seems that one who > tries to keep the posts on topic (by pressuring the poster) is sometimes > considered a moderator. I figure the list is not moderated if a post > makes it to the subscribers without human approval. Is that what you meant? From list-managers-owner Mon May 3 09:21:57 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id JAA08314; Mon, 3 May 1999 09:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz40.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id JAA08307 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 09:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from torres.gf1.internal (mail@isdn216-164.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.216.164]) by mailgate.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.04 #3) id 10eLCm-00047b-00; Mon, 3 May 1999 18:04:28 +0200 Received: from janeway.gf1.internal ([192.168.130.31]) by torres.gf1.internal with smtp (Exim 2.10 #1) id 10eLAU-0006hi-01 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Mon, 3 May 1999 18:02:06 +0200 From: Marc.Haber-lists@gmx.de (Marc Haber) To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 16:02:06 GMT Organization: posting from University of Karlsruhe, Germany References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 May 1999 07:49:57 +0200, you wrote: >A small number of contributors enjoy engaging in repartee via the list, >generally on issues which have nothing much to do with the subject = matter, >which is journalism and the Internet. Just a quick question: Does your list specify the list address in the Reply-To: field? I have made the experience that requiring users to take specific action if they want to reply in the public forum tremendously reduces the off-topic chatter. Greetings Marc --=20 -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! = ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im = Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32= 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31= 29 From list-managers-owner Mon May 3 13:07:18 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA10582; Mon, 3 May 1999 12:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA10574 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (localhost.graphics.cornell.edu) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA216721406; Mon, 3 May 1999 15:56:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199905031956.AA216721406@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Chuq Von Rospach Cc: Stan Ryckman , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM, stanr@ma.ultranet.com (S G Ryckman) Subject: Re: When lawyers run the internet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:08:58 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 15:56:46 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> The people at those addresses *asked* you to send material to those >> addresses, so it's clearly not trespass. > >some people don't pay too much attention. I've been getting >officious, snotty cease and desist letters from various agencies for >years, on requested subscriptions. Coast Guard bases are really >notable for this. Some mid-admin gets a burr up their nose and starts >snooping for "non professional" use of the mail systems, and starts >sending out letters. I've seen yet another variation on this. Sites that recycle usernames, particularly common at schools it seems. User X s*bscribes to my list and never uns*bscribes even though he no longer has the account. Next year user Y gets assigned the same account and is befuddled by all the incoming mail. "I never asked for this" is in this case a true statement. I've gotten the snotty cease and desist letter from the site's almost equally befuddled sysadmin who is certain his user is the victim of a s*bscribe forgery. When I write back that this was their fault for recycling user names and include a copy of the original user's s*bscribe request with a year old date attached it seems to work an amazing attitude transformation. -Mitch From list-managers-owner Mon May 3 13:20:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA10456; Mon, 3 May 1999 12:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu (BROCCOLI.GRAPHICS.CORNELL.EDU [128.84.247.53]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA10442 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 12:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from graphics.cornell.edu (localhost.graphics.cornell.edu) by broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA216450726; Mon, 3 May 1999 15:45:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199905031945.AA216450726@broccoli.graphics.cornell.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: mcb@postmodern.com (Michael C. Berch) Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: When lawyers run the internet In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:56:21 -0000." <199904302156.OAA26705@server.postmodern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 15:45:26 -0400 From: Mitch Collinsworth Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >> The following appeared in today's Risks-Forum Digest, Volume 20, Issue 35, >> available at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.35.html >> >> As I read it I began to wonder if perhaps I should ban Intel addresses >> from my lists, seeing as how they are recreational in nature and this >> judge's definition makes me uncomfortable sending anything to their >> private network that doesn't pertain directly to their business. >> What do y'all think? > >I don't see any relationship at all. The key word in the lawsuit, >and in the judge's opinion, is "unsolicited". Neither you, nor I, >nor other list managers (I hope), will be sending unsolicited mail >to Intel or anywhere else. Michael, The key word "unsolicited" does appear in both the summary in Risks Digest, as well as the referenced LA Times article, but neither article contained the text of the lawsuit or of the judge's opinion, nor any quote of the judge using the word. Maybe you found the text of the ruling and it's in there but I haven't seen it. Without that we're only quoting press reporters summaries. A few quotes from the LA Times article: The case marks the first time a court has considered whether a company can fence off its employees from incoming e-mail, let alone block content that in other settings would be considered constitutionally protected speech. "We're really concerned that sending an e-mail can now be considered a trespass," said Shari Steele, director of legal services for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group. "That has huge ramifications for the way that e-mail is done." Sweeping aside a number of free-speech arguments, Judge John R. Lewis compared borders between computer networks to property boundaries, and said "the mere connection of Intel's e-mail system with the Internet does not convert it into a public forum." Intel attorneys applauded the ruling and said the company only wanted the right to control access to computer networks it has spent millions of dollars building solely for the business use of its employees. >If Intel, speaking through one of its >employee accountholders, requests mail from a mailing list, you >cannot be charged with sending unsolicited mail. Whether that mail >is an appropriate use of their systems is between Intel management >and the employee, but if it is solicited, that does not affect you. Yes I used to believe this. Now I'm not so sure... -Mitch From list-managers-owner Mon May 3 14:51:02 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id OAA11616; Mon, 3 May 1999 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from angel.comcen.com.au (angel.comcen.com.au [203.23.236.69]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA11609 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 14:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [203.56.244.129] (modem045.drakul.comcen.com.au [203.56.244.45]) by angel.comcen.com.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA22613 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 07:43:31 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Sender: johnstev@pop3.syd.comcen.com.au Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990502180514.0097b850@pop.climber.org> References: <3.0.5.32.19990502180514.0097b850@pop.climber.org> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 19:39:29 +1000 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM From: John Stevenson Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk SRE wrote: >At 08:05 AM 5/3/99 +1200, Olwen Williams wrote: > >people like it as it is. One reason for moderating (apart from >stopping flame > >wars) was that many people complained about the level of mail, and the > >off-topic posts. > >Can you define "moderating"? Reading this thread, it seems that one who >tries to keep the posts on topic (by pressuring the poster) is sometimes >considered a moderator. I figure the list is not moderated if a post >makes it to the subscribers without human approval. Is that what you meant? I think there are two forms of moderation. 'Active' moderation requires the list manager to approve every post that goes to the list, while 'passive' moderation involves the list manager stepping in to control or stop postings that breach list guidelines. The usual sanction for passive moderation is removal from the list of those who won't toe the line. Other comments in this thread have dealt with tightly controlled lists. My own list is rather different. In an effort to create a [WARNING! ghastly 'Wired' buzzword imminent!] 'virtual community' I've allowed lots of discussion that's way off the list's central topic (Australian mountain biking, if anyone cares). Since my list deals with something that people do for fun, I have deliberately kept things informal, stepping in only to kill discussions that are both off topic and hugely irritating, such as Mac Vs PC flamefests and passings-on of virus warnings. My main moderation technique when such is needed is a friendly but firm email, off the list, to the problem subscriber, followed by delisting if they don't get a clue. I'm sure I'm not the only list mangler who has found that dealing with list 'discipline' on-list is a recipe for disaster. John Stevenson -- johnstev@comcen.com.au List manager, MTB-OZ The MTB-OZ FAQ, full of useful and sometimes not so useful information, can be found at http://members.xoom.com/mtboz/ and at http://www.comcen.com.au/~johnstev/faq/faq.html From list-managers-owner Tue May 4 03:59:32 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id DAA22680; Tue, 4 May 1999 03:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id DAA22673 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 03:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihug.co.nz (p1-max14.wlg.ihug.co.nz [216.100.151.65]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA18506; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:36:14 +1200 Message-ID: <372ECCEA.B53C979D@ihug.co.nz> Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 22:33:17 +1200 From: Olwen Williams X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stevenson , list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Moderating and off-topic posts References: <3.0.5.32.19990502180514.0097b850@pop.climber.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I ran my list that way for close to 2 years, but as the number of subscribers rose I found I had to move to full or active moderation to keep the list running smoothly. Since last June when I moved the list to onelt we have gone from around 200 members to 856 today (I don't know where they all come from). Also as a support list we possibly have to be stricter over flaming, because many of the members are emotionally fragile, and things can really get out of hand. I decided early on that the main purpose was to make it a safe place to discuss the problems of morbid obesity, and surgery for it, and that differences in other areas couldn't be allowed to threaten that safety. After all people can find other people elsewhere to discuss religion, or whatever, but they may have a lot of trouble finding another place to share the hurt that their weight causes. But disciplinary messages have always been sent privately, and have almost always been polite and reasoned even when what I really wanted to do was knock heads together. I've only once had to remove a member, and have resisted doing it as much as possible because some of the people who make hurtful remarks are most in need of support themselves. John Stevenson wrote: > > Other comments in this thread have dealt with tightly controlled > lists. My own list is rather different. In an effort to create a > [WARNING! ghastly 'Wired' buzzword imminent!] 'virtual community' > I've allowed lots of discussion that's way off the list's central > topic (Australian mountain biking, if anyone cares). Since my list > deals with something that people do for fun, I have deliberately kept > things informal, stepping in only to kill discussions that are both > off topic and hugely irritating, such as Mac Vs PC flamefests and > passings-on of virus warnings. > > My main moderation technique when such is needed is a friendly but > firm email, off the list, to the problem subscriber, followed by > delisting if they don't get a clue. I'm sure I'm not the only list > mangler who has found that dealing with list 'discipline' on-list is > a recipe for disaster. > > John Stevenson -- johnstev@comcen.com.au > List manager, MTB-OZ > > The MTB-OZ FAQ, full of useful and sometimes not so useful > information, can be found at http://members.xoom.com/mtboz/ and at > http://www.comcen.com.au/~johnstev/faq/faq.html From list-managers-owner Tue May 4 22:50:51 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA04049; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from saturn.rmci.net (saturn.rmci.net [205.162.184.38]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id WAA04042 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 5824 invoked from network); 5 May 1999 05:36:54 -0000 Received: from wal004.valint.net (HELO steve) (206.107.184.14) by saturn.rmci.net with SMTP; 5 May 1999 05:36:54 -0000 Received: from Spooler by steve (Mercury/32 v2.14); 4 May 99 22:38:05 -0700 Received: from spooler by localhost (Mercury/32 v2.14); 4 May 99 22:36:59 -0700 From: sew@valint.net (Steve Washam) To: postmaster@egroups.com Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: egroups mail problem - no Date field Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 22:26:39 -0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: PC-Yarn 0.92 / YES 0.22 Reply-To: sew@valint.net Lines: 17 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Dear postmaster, Egroups just sent me a notice which I never would have seen except for a fluke. My mail system is a newsreader which automatically rejects messages lacking a date header. I can't tell from RFC822 if Date is a required field or not 'cause all that meta notation makes my eyes glaze over. But if egroups wants to tell me I've been subscribed to a list, please include a date header so that I will actually see the message. Thanks, Steve Washam From list-managers-owner Wed May 5 00:05:41 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA04728; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:47:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 XAA04721 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3213 invoked from network); 5 May 1999 06:47:33 -0000 Received: from bonkers.neosoft.com (HELO bonkers.taronga.com) (206.109.2.48) by mushi.colo.neosoft.com with SMTP; 5 May 1999 06:47:33 -0000 Received: (from arielle@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA13361 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:47:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from arielle) From: Stephanie da Silva Message-Id: <199905050647.BAA13361@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: egroups mail problem - no Date field To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 01:47:28 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk sew@valint.net (Steve Washam): > Egroups just sent me a notice which I never would have seen > except for a fluke. My mail system is a newsreader which > automatically rejects messages lacking a date header. ONElist does the same thing. I was posting some message to a ONElist list and stripped out the date header, assuming ONElist would put its own back in. It posted them with a header that said Date: (none). Someone recently mentioned recycled user names. Here's a twist: recycled listnames. Ran into this on ONElist again. Contacted a listowner listed in the PAML, and got somebody totally different, going "what on earth are you talking about?" Same listname, differnet list, different listowner. Person I was looking for was still there, with a list with a slightly different name. From list-managers-owner Wed May 5 08:34:21 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA12759; Wed, 5 May 1999 08:18:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA12751 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 08:18:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 2371 invoked by uid 100); 5 May 1999 11:18:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:18:18 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Steve Washam cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: egroups mail problem - no Date field In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > I can't tell from RFC822 if Date is a required field or not > 'cause all that meta notation makes my eyes glaze over. According to RFC822, the date header is required, but I've never seen an MTA that would reject a message for lacking a date. News software is much pickier, and there are lots of header flaws that will keep a message from passing through a mail to news gateway. I use INN, and my gateway script checks for invalid message ids, duplicate date or message id lines, missing subject, and a bunch of other errors like that. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Wed May 5 10:48:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id KAA14225; Wed, 5 May 1999 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FSM-1.PICA.ARMY.MIL (fsm-1.pica.army.mil [129.139.96.87]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id KAA14218 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 10:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 May 99 13:31:57 EDT From: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer To: John R Levine , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: egroups mail problem - no Date field Message-ID: <9905051331.aa28081@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk John Levine: >> I can't tell from RFC822 if Date is a required field or not >> 'cause all that meta notation makes my eyes glaze over. > >According to RFC822, the date header is required, but I've never seen an >MTA that would reject a message for lacking a date. Oh, they're out there. Seemingly, a lot of them in Europe (don't ask how I came to that conclusion, it's just an observation). Tom Coradeschi, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer http://k-whiner.pica.army.mil/info-labview/info-labview.html From list-managers-owner Wed May 5 11:35:12 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id LAA14640; Wed, 5 May 1999 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.value.net (www-fr.value.net [207.33.92.8]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id LAA14632 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 11:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (i180.value.net [206.14.136.180]) by www.value.net (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA23403 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 11:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monkeys.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by monkeys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14892 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 11:36:55 -0700 To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: egroups mail problem - no Date field In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 05 May 1999 11:18:18 -0400. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 11:36:54 -0700 Message-ID: <14890.925929414@monkeys.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk In message , John R Levine wrote: >> I can't tell from RFC822 if Date is a required field or not >> 'cause all that meta notation makes my eyes glaze over. > >According to RFC822, the date header is required, but I've never seen an >MTA that would reject a message for lacking a date. There are some. Sorry, I can't give you any names, but I know that there are some. The IMRSS test messages had to be modified to include a Date: header on account of this. -- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, California ---------- E-Scrub Technologies, Inc. -- Deadbolt(tm) Personal E-Mail Filter demo: http://www.e-scrub.com/deadbolt/ -- FREE Web Harvester Protection - http://www.e-scrub.com/wpoison/ - Try it! -- FREE DynamicIP Spam Filtering - http://www.imrss.org/dssl/ - TELL YOUR ISP! From list-managers-owner Wed May 5 22:49:58 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA21177; Wed, 5 May 1999 22:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail4.svr.pol.co.uk (mail4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.211]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id WAA21164 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 22:40:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-49.technetium.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.21.49] ident=cc047) by mail4.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10fGu3-0005WC-00; Thu, 6 May 1999 06:40:59 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 06:40:53 +0100 (BST) From: Jeffrey Goldberg X-Sender: cc047@arpad.thegreen.private Reply-To: Jeffrey Goldberg To: Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer cc: John R Levine , list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: egroups mail problem - no Date field In-Reply-To: <9905051331.aa28081@fsm-1.fsm-1.pica.army.mil> Message-ID: Organization: Cranfield University Computer Centre MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 May 1999, Info-LabVIEW List Maintainer wrote: > John Levine: > >> I can't tell from RFC822 if Date is a required field or not > >> 'cause all that meta notation makes my eyes glaze over. > > > >According to RFC822, the date header is required, but I've never seen an > >MTA that would reject a message for lacking a date. > > Oh, they're out there. Seemingly, a lot of them in Europe (don't ask how I > came to that conclusion, it's just an observation). exim, http://www.exim.org/ , has a feature for checking header syntax and complience and optionally rejecting mail with malformed headers. A couple of years ago, one could catch a fair about of spam that way, without too many false positives. Then Outlook came along and spammers produced better headers, so things reversed. So while exim has these feature, I don't think that anyone is using it on anything other than outgoing mail now. It is a feature which is off by default. Also, I've seen that some versions of a VMS mailer MX will reject mail with some malformed headers. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg +44 (0)1234 750 111 x 2826 Cranfield Computer Centre FAX 751 814 J.Goldberg@Cranfield.ac.uk http://WWW.Cranfield.ac.uk/public/cc/cc047/ Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice. From list-managers-owner Sat May 8 23:23:05 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA25608; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA25600 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lech.wokiss.pl (lech.wokiss.wlkp.pl [195.117.236.34]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id OAA11517 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (rmod02.bydgoszcz.mtl.pl [195.117.169.33]) by lech.wokiss.pl (8.8.5/SlackWare) with SMTP id XAA17324 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:24:10 +0200 (CETDST) From: "[Roberto]" To: Subject: HTML in posts Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 23:24:45 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi, Is there any chance to set Majordomo for not resending post in HTML format? And second: the same (stop resending) post with some words in Subject (kind of sh!!t words list)? Thanx for help Rob From list-managers-owner Sat May 8 23:29:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA25464; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA25454 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from epithumia.math.uh.edu (epithumia.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.2]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id PAA03280 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by epithumia.math.uh.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA02883; Sat, 1 May 1999 17:06:13 -0500 From: tibbs@hpc.uh.edu To: David Shaw Cc: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: Topica - I give up References: <19990430164625.A1264@jabberwocky.com> Date: 01 May 1999 17:06:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: David Shaw's message of "Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:46:25 -0400" Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070065 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.65) Emacs/20.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk >>>>> "DS" == David Shaw writes: DS> I give up. You win. Please remove any and all lists hosted on DS> lists.jabberwocky.com from your system. Good luck. I politely demanded the same and was told to go to the pretty URL and poke at the pretty buttons. They just don't get it. -- Jason L Tibbitts III - tibbs@uh.edu - 713/743-3486 - 660PGH - 94 PC800 System Manager: University of Houston Department of Mathematics "I survived while Ruby died in Jackie's trashy fantasy..." From list-managers-owner Sat May 8 23:44:28 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA25662; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id XAA25652 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 8 May 1999 23:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bouvreuil.cybercable.fr (bouvreuil.cybercable.fr [212.198.3.12]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA15770 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 21:00:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23783 invoked from network); 4 May 1999 05:54:31 +0200 Received: from d079.paris-160.cybercable.fr (HELO ?212.198.160.79?) (212.198.160.79) by bouvreuil.cybercable.fr with SMTP; 4 May 1999 03:54:31 -0000 X-Sender: dsharp@pop3.cybercable.fr Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 05:52:23 +0200 To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM From: David Sharp Subject: Re:Moderating and off-topic posts Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Many thanks to all who took the time to respond to my message. This has confirmed several things for me. In particular that: -- There are as many ways of moderating a list as there are types of people who do it (which is why it's good to be able to compare notes with other list managers) -- Keeping track of "unsubscribe" messages to see if they correlate with bursts of off-topic activity is a good idea. I haven't been tracking subscribe and unsubscribe data for our list, but will now begin doing so. SRE wrote: >On the lists I run, serious flames (lasting more than a day and with more >than 10 posts) cause about 3 out of 400 subscribers to leave. The unsub >flurries are directly linked with flames, so I use Mj2's "taboo-headers" >configuration to bounce messages after posting to the list that the >discussion is off-topic. This confirms my gut feeling, which is that the number of people who are put off by off-topic activity is greater than the vocal minority who think they have a right to say what they like. -- Setting up a "back porch" type list for off-topic discussions, as suggested by Rick Jaggers sounds like a great idea. I saw the "back porch" idea work once on the Online News list, when the Lewinsky/Clinton story broke, and several members just couldn't resist the temptation to discuss it. In that case it was an individual list member, and not the moderator, who set up a parallel list, via Onelist. The only proviso would be, in the case of the French journalism list, that the "back porch" list would probably have to be run on one of the free services, and not via the paid service which we use for the main list. As we aren't rich (yet), I don't think we could justify spending yet more money on a list which by definition is off-topic. Marc Haber writes: > >Just a quick question: Does your list specify the list address in the >Reply-To: field? > No. I agree that's an invitation to off-topic posters. It's also extremely risky, given that the great majority of lists are configured so that the reply-to field contains the poster's and not the list, address. I participate in one mailing list that's configured that way, and I have to be very careful when making personal replies to posts on it, as it's fatally easy to forget that the reply is going to the whole list. As we all know, this can cause some excruciatingly embarrassing situations. -- David Sharp, journaliste, France Tel (home) 331 42 64 35 94 - (office) 331 40 41 47 92 E-mail ICQ: 16881741 From list-managers-owner Mon May 10 17:01:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA28994; Mon, 10 May 1999 16:43:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mermaid.shore.net (mermaid.shore.net [207.244.124.6]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA28987 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 16:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org [204.167.97.154] by mermaid.shore.net with esmtp (Exim) for List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM id 10gzha-0004mh-00; Mon, 10 May 1999 19:43:14 -0400 Received: (from jeffw@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-relay2) id TAA24401; Mon, 10 May 1999 19:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:43:12 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Mail-Followup-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1 Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I'm the maintainer of a non-commercial site that provides free mailing lists for people that are interested in music ( http://www.smoe.org/lists/ ). As a normal part of maintaining the mailing lists, we also keep archives of the mailing lists, and we make them available on the web. The archives are not edited, nor are they inspected by a human as they are produced. I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list archives. Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held liable for copyright infringement? -jeff ----- Forwarded message from "Samuel D. Osowski" ----- Received: from aegis.future-focus.com (aegis.future-focus.com [207.137.189.2]) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-relay2) with ESMTP id RAA19765 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from excalibur.future-focus.com ([10.0.0.6]) by aegis.future-focus.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id NAA08789 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 13:23:52 -0700 Message-Id: <4.0.2.19990510131121.00aaa8e0@10.0.0.1> X-Sender: sdo@mail.future-focus.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:11:31 -0700 To: webmaster@smoe.org From: "Samuel D. Osowski" Subject: Copyright infringement Mime-Version: 1.0 LATURNO AND GRAVES A LAW PARTNERSHIP PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES BUILDING 9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 520 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 (619) 455-9496 FAX (619) 455-0672 www.laturnograves.com Dear Madame/Sir: You have copied, displayed and disseminated a poem on your home page without a license from its owner and without attribution to him. We are sending you this correspondence to advise you that you are obligated to compensate the owner for your infringement of his copyright and to explain to you what to do in order to be released from this obligation. Adam Fendelman is the author and copyright owner of the poem entitled "What Life is All About." He published the first version of this poem in 1996 and has subsequently published several other versions. You may view some of them on his home page at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715327/life.htm. A copy of the official United States Copyright Office registration of Mr. Fendelman's original poem is also posted on his home page. The poem on your home page is identical to or is a derivative of one of Mr. Fendelman's poems. Mr. Fendelman has retained this firm to represent his interests in this matter. As the author and owner of the copyright on these poems, Mr. Fendelman has the exclusive rights to duplicate, disseminate, prepare derivatives of, and to display them. These rights are set forth in Section 106 of Title 17 of the United States Code. Your use of an identical or substantially similar poem on your home page is an infringement of these rights. As a consequence, you are obligated by law to compensate Mr. Fendelman under the provisions of Section 504 of Title 17 of the United States Code. We understand that you may consider your use of this poem to be innocent. Section 504 of the copyright law provides that lack of willfulness or absence of belief that your use constitutes infringement does not relieve you of your liability. The amount of your liability for your infringement is set forth in Section 504 of the copyright law. It specifies that the statutory damages for which an individual infringer is liable are not less than $500 or more than $20,000. However, these damages may be increased to $100,000 for willful infringement. Further, the minimum amount to which the law may reduce these damages is $200.00 if the infringer can establish he was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright. You may obtain a release of your liability for your non-commercial infringement of Mr. Fendelman's rights by following these instructions: 1. Immediately remove the poem from your home page. 2. Within thirty days of the date of this email, remit to the mailing address shown above the amount of two hundred dollars ($200) payable to Laturno and Graves. 3. Write the URL for your home page legibly on your remittance. Your timely payment and removal of the poem from your home page in accordance with these instructions will protect you from our commencing further proceedings against you for non-commercial uses of the subject poem on your home page prior to and including the date of this correspondence. Please note, however, that nothing in this letter shall serve to release or reduce any liability of any of the following entities in pending Civil Action # CV 99-01694 DDP (RCX): CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL ENTERPRISES, Inc., Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hanson, Kimberly Kirberger, Health Communications, Inc. Please call me at the telephone # shown above or email me @ sdo@laturnograves.com if you desire to continue using Mr. Fendelman's poem on your home page, if you have used the poem for commercial purposes, if you wish to use it for purposes other than on your home page, or if you have any questions about this matter. Should you fail or refuse to remit the above payment, or should you continue to use Mr. Fendelman's poem on your home page without his permission, your liability will increase substantially and will also subject you to liability for payment of Mr. Fendelman's attorneys fees to recover the amounts you owe him. A copy of the copyright laws referred to above is provided in Attachment A at the end of this letter or you may view the entire text of Title 17 of the United States Code at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17. Samuel D. Osowski Attorney at Law ATTACHMENT A Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. Sec. 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits (a) In General. - Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either - (1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or (2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c). (b) Actual Damages and Profits. - The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. (c) Statutory Damages. - (1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work. (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work. From list-managers-owner Mon May 10 18:47:40 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA29916; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell7.ba.best.com (shell7.ba.best.com [206.184.139.138]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id SAA29909 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from cnorman@localhost) by shell7.ba.best.com (8.9.3/8.9.2/best.sh) id SAA00831; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199905110126.SAA00831@shell7.ba.best.com> From: Cyndi Norman To: jeffw@smoe.org CC: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM, cnorman@best.com In-reply-to: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> (message from Jeff Wasilko on Mon, 10 May 1999 19:43:12 -0400) Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Reply-to: cnorman@best.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:43:12 -0400 From: Jeff Wasilko As a normal part of maintaining the mailing lists, we also keep archives of the mailing lists, and we make them available on the web. ... I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list archives. Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held liable for copyright infringement? This is exactly why I don't allow my subscribers to post copyrighted material (that they didn't write or get permission for) to my mailing lists. Before I started moderating my lists, I would be stern with people who violated the rules and I would remove the offending posts from the archives. I'm sure some slipped through anyway. I have no idea if you are liable for the copyright violation since they aren't even your mailing lists and the archives are done automatically. Even if you're sure you're not, I would remove the poems from the archives as a curtosy and because it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't pay the "fine" though. I would send a polite letter saying "I have removed such and such poem from all places on my web site. Thank you for bringing this to my attention." If they don't pursue the money issue, you're in the clear. If they do, consult a lawyer. I don't know all the details involved in copyright issues on the web and in mailing lists. I can make educated guesses but I don't want to do that unless I'm sure. Especially because we're talking about a real case here and not a hypothetical one. I wonder if a place like dejanews would be responsible for copyright violations found in their archives... If there are people certain of the law (not just educated people making intelligent guesses), I would be very interested in knowing how to protect myself, as a mailing list owner with web-accessable archives. I know I am responsible for copyrighted material I knowingly put into the archives but what if it's accidental? Maybe a subscriber plagerized the piece. Or maybe I just missed it. Is there a disclaimer that would help? I already have one to tell subscribers that their posts will be archived. Also, may I have permission to use your story (and post) to scare the bejesus out of my subscribers who still don't get the importance of copyright law? Good luck, please keep us all updated. Cyndi -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) cyndi@consultclarity.com http://www.consultclarity.com/ _________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/ From list-managers-owner Mon May 10 20:31:13 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id UAA01194; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:18:48 -0700 (PDT) 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 UAA01183 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:18:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 XAA07363; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:19:50 -0400 (EDT) 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 XAA23736; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA10374; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:18:52 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: Jeff Wasilko cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives In-Reply-To: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Personal opinion follows. I am NOT a lawyer. On Mon, 10 May 1999, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing > lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list > archives. A "legal" notice sent by email isn't worth the paper it's written on. I would remove the copyrighted material in question, notify the author that you have done so and wait for a proper summons. If practical, find the author's email address, phone number or snail mail address by independent means. You have no way of knowing if the email you got was in fact from the author's representative. Could be a forgery. > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > liable for copyright infringement? I'm not aware of any special protection for mailing list archives. - murr - From list-managers-owner Mon May 10 21:57:10 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA01990; Mon, 10 May 1999 21:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id VAA01982 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 21:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 13550 invoked by uid 100); 11 May 1999 00:47:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 00:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Jeff Wasilko cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives In-Reply-To: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > liable for copyright infringement? I am not a lawyer, but I rarely let that stop me. As you suspect, you're being shaken down, and the situation is nowhere near as cut and dried as the letter claims it is. The copies of the poem could fall under the fair use exemption, particularly if people were commenting on it, not just sending it in. Even if it is infringing, it's not clear whether you are the infringer or the people who sent the poem to the mailing list are. And realistically, nobody's going to sue you for $200, which is what a court would likely award. I'd delete the messages with the poems from the archive, and maybe write back. I certainly wouldn't pay. The new Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically exempts service providers for liability for innocent infringement so long as you register yourself with the copyright office. Anyone who runs a web site with content provided by others should consider registering. See http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/ Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Mon May 10 23:43:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA03577; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA03570 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA24589 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:30:02 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA13865 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:29:57 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199905110629.BAA13865@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Re: copyright law vs mailing list archives To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 01:29:57 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Jeff Wasilko wrote: > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > liable for copyright infringement? None that I've ever been told about, but neither do they bear any extra responsibilities. Assuming this isn't a hoax or scam, I think that the EFF might be interested in your situation, and possibly the ACLU as well. As far as I know, the issues have not been seriously tested in court yet, my fervent hope as a list manager has been NOT to be that test case. This may not be that test case, either, but I feel that eventually there WILL be such a test case, and not to sound too alarmist, but I see this as one of the greatest challenges facing the future of the Internet. -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 06:41:39 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA10648; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA10627 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem05-44.swva.net [208.140.224.108]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA16744 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199905111336.JAA16744@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com References: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10 May 99, at 23:18, murr rhame wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 1999, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > > > I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing > > lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list > > archives. > > A "legal" notice sent by email isn't worth the paper it's written on. > I would remove the copyrighted material in question, notify the author > that you have done so and wait for a proper summons. If practical, > find the author's email address, phone number or snail mail address by > independent means. You have no way of knowing if the email you got was > in fact from the author's representative. Could be a forgery. This is all reasonable advice. But rather than ignore it, I'd forward the letter to *my* lawyer and have him check into it.. One tack would be to "pretend" that OCILLA would apply in this case [it really wouldn't] and act as if you were an ISP [which means: 1) remove the alleged-infringing material immediately, and 2) notify the actual infringer [the person(s) who posted the material] of the copyright action. > > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > > liable for copyright infringement? > > I'm not aware of any special protection for mailing list archives. Not for third-party infringement questions, certainly. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 07:11:15 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA10646; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA10626 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem05-44.swva.net [208.140.224.108]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA16753 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199905111336.JAA16753@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com In-reply-to: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 10 May 99, at 19:43, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > As a normal part of maintaining the mailing lists, we also keep > archives of the mailing lists, and we make them available on the > web. The archives are not edited, nor are they inspected by a > human as they are produced. > > I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing > lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list > archives. > > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > liable for copyright infringement? Well, IANAL [but I moderate a law newsgroup on TV :o)] and I think you may have problems. There has never been a court case to test whether 'archives' are legal or not. BUT: that question usually arises in the context of trying to define the boundaries of the 'implied license' granted by posting/mlm'ing the orginal work.. that is with the presumption that the poster HAD the copying-rights to have posted the work in the first place. I'm assuming that the poem was not posted by Mr. Fendelman, because then it isn't near as cut-and-dried as the lawyer would have it seem and, indeed, you might be headed to be the dread 'test case' we've all been waiting for [testing just what the limits of the implied license are] It seems that this is apparently different --- your forum [and your archive] have apparently been used to infingingly-distribute copyrighted material. Alas, I don't think that your role fits under OCILLA [online copyright infringement liability limitation act], so I don't see an obvious way for you to duck liability. You probably need to consult with a lawyer [or at least post an inquiry to misc.legal.int-property..:o)] /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 07:17:24 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id GAA10647; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id GAA10625 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem05-44.swva.net [208.140.224.108]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id JAA16724 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199905111336.JAA16724@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:36:22 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com References: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11 May 99, at 0:47, John R Levine wrote: > > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > > liable for copyright infringement? > > I am not a lawyer, but I rarely let that stop me. > > As you suspect, you're being shaken down, and the situation is nowhere near > as cut and dried as the letter claims it is. The copies of the poem could > fall under the fair use exemption, particularly if people were commenting on > it, not just sending it in. I don't think that 'fair use' extends as far as a lot of folk usually think it does. I'd bet that if we saw some of the submitted alleged- infinging posts they wouldn't really be fair use. [Note that Jeff's forum is not a poetry review/commentary list] > .. Even if it is infringing, it's not clear whether > you are the infringer or the people who sent the poem to the mailing list > are. And realistically, nobody's going to sue you for $200, which is what a > court would likely award. I'd delete the messages with the poems from the > archive, and maybe write back. I certainly wouldn't pay. This is always a toss up, but I'd agree [although I'd call a lawyer first]: there is no reason ever to answer one of these sorts of things. Let the lawyer actually go and file suit, if they wish. I would, however, immediately remove the material from the archives [and also notify the folks that sent it to the list that a copyright holder has stepped forward to challenge their submission]. > The new Digital Millenium Copyright Act specifically exempts service > providers for liability for innocent infringement so long as you register > yourself with the copyright office. Anyone who runs a web site with content > provided by others should consider registering. See > http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/ I don't think this is correct. OCILLA would exempt the site *running* the web-server with the archive, but my reading of it wouldn't provide a means of exempting the web-*page*-owner. If you are putting the material on *your* web page, then, to my reading, OCILLA doesn't apply and *you* are not going to be exempt.. I wrote a little almost-in-English summary of OCILLA, how it works and what it does. If you're interested email me.. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 08:25:57 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA11585; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id IAA11578 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:11:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 905 invoked by uid 100); 11 May 1999 11:12:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:12:09 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk One last legal note: I visited the guy's web site. It's pretty clear what's going on. He wrote this sappy little poem three years ago, put it up on his web site, it spread all over the net, and now he's annoyed that his poem is all over the place, usually without even his name on it. So he registered the copyright just this past December and hired some law firm to see if he can shake people down. As someone else noted, an e-mailed demand letter is pretty peculiar. Also, although statutory damages are real, they only apply to infringements after the copyright is registered, so in this case, any infringing copies made before 12/14/98 would only be eligible in the worst case for actual damages, which in this case are pretty clearly zero. So I'd take out the potentially infringing messages, and otherwise ignore it. If you maintain a substantial archive, though, my advice to register with the copyright office to get the protection of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act still stands. It only costs $20. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 13:25:38 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id NAA14816; Tue, 11 May 1999 13:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id NAA14809 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 13:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem05-16.swva.net [208.140.224.80]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id QAA25775 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 16:24:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199905112024.QAA25775@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:24:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On 11 May 99, at 11:12, John R Levine wrote: > If you maintain a substantial archive, though, my advice to register > with the copyright office to get the protection of the Digital > Millenium Copyright Act still stands. It only costs $20. John and I end up disagreeing on this one, I think, but since neither of us are lawyers, you pays your money and you takes your choice. OCILLA refers throughout to "service provider" and includes verbiage like: (c) INFORMATION RESIDING ON SYSTEMS OR NETWORKS AT DIRECTION OF USERS- (1) IN GENERAL- A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection [...] which to my reading seemed to be intended to mean 'ISPs'. I don't think that the folks sending messages to a mailing list would be considered "users" in the context of the material appearing in the archives, and so, alas, to my reading the archive-administrator would _not_ have the recourse to gain immunity under OCILLA [but the folks running the system *used* by the archive-administrator would be]. On the other hand, it hasn't been adjudicated yet and so it might work: the analogues are certainly there [where it says things like: `(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, ... there's a clear analog to "removing the material from the archive" and where OCILLA talks about "user" [for notification and counter-claims and such] you could read "the person that sent the material to the mailing list originally"... And so it is _possible_ that OCILLA might be extendable to "secondary service providers" or some such terminology, but it is not as clear-cut as the protections affords the ISP/sysop. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 18:24:35 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA17919; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA17908 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rapidnet.com (rapidnet.com [205.164.216.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id UAA01196 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neatnettricks.com (pt8-44.rapidnet.com [208.142.248.155]) by rapidnet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27362; Mon, 10 May 1999 21:20:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <3737A1ED.46BBD196@neatnettricks.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 21:20:13 -0600 From: Jack Teems X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Wasilko , List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives References: <19990510194312.E21433@smoe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk sheesh! Just another reason I'm glad and immensely relieved that I (1) don't maintain an archive (2) have a broadcast-only list and (3) don't accept other's purported works to be published. I wish you well. Jeff Wasilko wrote: > I'm the maintainer of a non-commercial site that provides free > mailing lists for people that are interested in music > ( http://www.smoe.org/lists/ ). > > As a normal part of maintaining the mailing lists, we also keep > archives of the mailing lists, and we make them available on the > web. The archives are not edited, nor are they inspected by a > human as they are produced. > > I received the mail below today, and upon inspecting the mailing > lists archives, I've found 6 copies of the poem in various list > archives. > > Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held > liable for copyright infringement? > > -jeff > > ----- Forwarded message from "Samuel D. Osowski" ----- > (mericfully snipped) - NEAT NET TRICKS is a light-hearted not-too-technical collection of computer and internet tips, read by 35,000 in 125+ countries. To subscribe free, go to http://neatnettricks.com or indicate SUBSCRIBE NEATNETTRICKS in Email to majordomo@neatnettricks.com From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 18:39:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id SAA17950; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id SAA17938 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plaidworks.com (plaidworks.com [209.239.169.200]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA03471 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (a197.plaidworks.com [209.239.169.197] (may be forged)) by plaidworks.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA20148 ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:22:05 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:27:50 -0700 To: murr rhame , Jeff Wasilko From: Chuq Von Rospach Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives Cc: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk At 11:18 PM -0400 5/10/99, murr rhame wrote: > A "legal" notice sent by email isn't worth the paper it's written on. > I would remove the copyrighted material in question, notify the author > that you have done so and wait for a proper summons. well, I wouldn't wait for a proper summons. I'd assume it was the end of it. No sense getting upset over nothing. >> Do mailing list archives have any protection against being held >> liable for copyright infringement? > I'm not aware of any special protection for mailing list archives. There is none. You don't have to cause the infringement to be responsible for it. Ignorance is some excuse in a case like this -- but once you're warned about the infringment, you can't claim ignorance any more. And if someone pulls something out of ESPNet and posts it to a list, stripping all of the copyright material, and someone else takes it off that list and posts it to your list, it's STILL a copyright infringment. And once ESPNet comes and points this out and shows you the source, you have to deal with it. Everyone in the chain is responsible for the infringement at some point in time. To collect damages, they'd have to prove what the damages you caused to them was. For something like this, I wish them luck -- but it'd still be a painful situation to be in. Generally, what most copyright holders want is cooperation, and that's easy and cheap. -- Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? ) Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq@apple.com) Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui@plaidworks.com) + Snakes and trees aren't natural enemies -- but if the tree attacks first... (Ranger Gord, The Red Green Show) From list-managers-owner Tue May 11 21:44:36 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id VAA19945; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id VAA19938 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from f8c3b (1Cust92.tnt28.nyc3.da.uu.net [208.255.109.92]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09910 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:34:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "David W. Vaughan" To: Subject: Copyright law vs. mailing list archives Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 00:34:43 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01be9c30$c18d9fc0$5c6dffd0@f8c3b> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 In-Reply-To: <199905110800.BAA04542@honor.greatcircle.com> Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi Jeff! > He published the first version of this poem in 1996 and has subsequently > published several other versions. You may view some of them on > his home page at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715327/life.htm. A copy of the > official United States Copyright Office registration of Mr. Fendelman's > original poem is also posted on his home page. What is/are the date(s) of the messages that were archived at your site? I see from the copy of the copyright notice at Mr. Fendelman's home page that the copyright's "effective date of registration" is December 14, 1998. If the archived materials were NOT copyright protected at the time that they were sent in messages now archived at your site, I wonder if and how this may affect Laturno & Graves claim? > Please note, > however, that nothing in this letter shall serve to release or reduce any > liability of any of the following entities in pending Civil Action # CV > 99-01694 DDP (RCX): CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE SOUL ENTERPRISES, Inc., Jack > Canfield, Mark Victor Hanson, Kimberly Kirberger, Health > Communications, Inc. Who are these people/entities and how do they fit in here? (Posters of the original messages?) Interestingly, even with only a quick search, I found several sites with substantially the same poem eg.,: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/6050/lifeisnt.html http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Tidepool/3247/life.html http://www.aesgmbh.de/tamir/life.html http://kathy.addr.com/thoughts/poetry/lifeisnt.htm (here the author is shown as being "Connie Preti - 1997") http://www.labs.net/jfeather/Lifeisnt.htm (here the author is shown as being Katie Leicht, age 17,; note the apparent link with "Chicken Soup", which would account for the appearance of that name, above) http://www.rom101.com/lifeis.htm http://www.eyeontomorrow.com/embracingthechild/Clifeisnt.htm (author unknown!) http://osprey.unf.edu/~jspenc3/jokes/life.txt http://www.deathstar.org/~krlipka/other/life.html (says here that the poem came around the net as a chain letter - several times) http://members.wbs.net/homepages/d/a/v/davematthewsband143/life.txt http://home.ipoline.com/~tcha/justjoke/arqueangel.txt (and here it is in chain letter format) As a general question, when someone files for copyright on a creative written work, does the Copyright Office carry out any steps to establish that the requestor is indeed the "real" author of the piece? /dwv From list-managers-owner Wed May 12 12:58:33 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA01567; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw.tssi.com (gw.tssi.com [198.147.197.1]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA01527 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from celery.tssi.com (nolan@celery.tssi.com [198.147.197.6]) by gw.tssi.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA13849 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 14:43:21 -0500 Received: (from celery.tssi.com) by celery.tssi.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA25406 for list-managers@GreatCircle.com; Wed, 12 May 1999 14:43:20 -0500 From: Mike Nolan Message-Id: <199905121943.OAA25406@celery.tssi.com> Subject: Copyright law vs. mailing list archives To: list-managers@GreatCircle.com (List Managers) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:43:20 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk I don't know that it has been mentioned here, but the writers community has a lot of information about copyrights and cyberspace. Here are two pointers that will get you started, you could spend hours surfing from these links. http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/copyright.html http://www.inkspot.com -- Mike Nolan From list-managers-owner Wed May 12 16:55:59 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id QAA04250; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id QAA04243 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Mercury.mcs.net (dattier@Mercury.mcs.net [192.160.127.80]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.7/8.8.2) with ESMTP id SAA05531 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:53:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from dattier@localhost) by Mercury.mcs.net (8.8.7/8.8.2) id SAA36760 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:53:58 -0500 (CDT) From: "David W. Tamkin" Message-Id: <199905122353.SAA36760@Mercury.mcs.net> Subject: Re: copyright law vs. mailing list archives To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 18:53:58 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: from "murr rhame" at May 10, 99 11:18:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Murr Rhame wrote, | You have no way of knowing if the email you got was | in fact from the author's representative. Could be a forgery. Yes, it was interesting that the check was to be made payable to the law firm, not to the author. As several people have said, service by email has no standing. In Jeff's position, after deleting the poem from my site (and any references and links to it on other pages on my site), I'd be sorely tempted to write back to the lawyers claiming no such thing was on my site and that someone must have misinformed them. (If it turns out that their cached copies of pages from my site include the poem, I'd say they edited it into them.) Not sure whether I'd go ahead and do that. More likely I'd delete it, read the riot act to whoever had posted it, and not respond to the attorneys. From list-managers-owner Wed May 12 23:10:06 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id WAA08719; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id WAA08709 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ctc.swva.net (ctc.swva.net [165.166.123.19]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id MAA14290 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from default (pem05-16.swva.net [208.140.224.80]) by ctc.swva.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id PAA20900 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 15:39:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199905111939.PAA20900@ctc.swva.net> From: "Bernie Cosell" Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers To: list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:39:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: (Fwd) Notes on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Act Reply-to: bernie@fantasyfarm.com X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk A few folk have already asked for this, so I apologize for irritating the rest of you, but I'll just send it here. This was written in the context of an internal memo *to*an*ISP* about what OCILLA means and the 'we's refer to the ISP. And since IANAL this should not be considered "legal advice" under any state's definition of same, just a layman's interpretation of OCILLA. The key thing, speaking as an ISP now, is that OCILLA goes beyond just "providing a defense" it actually will *remove* the ISP from the lawsuit- loop. That's, of course, a big deal: if the law just said "this could be OK in circumstances", the ISP could still end up with big legal bills to go and makes its defense and it is one of those 'even if you win, you lose' situations... OCILLA [by my reading] goes a step farther, and so there's a real incentive to play by its rules (a stitch in time!). /Bernie\ ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 19:23:56 -0500 Subject: Notes on the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Act The OCILLA will, if we comply with its requirements, largely insulate us from copyright suits brought as a result of alleged infringements by our customers. The requirements are pretty simple and fairly obvious, so there shouldn't be any surprises. Also, this is, of course, all predicated that *WE* are not participants in any alleged infringement that our servers are all acting normally, and also that we comply with any court orders that come by. 1) Registering We need to have a designated "Agent" who will deal with copyright matters. The information the copyright office [CO] needs is: * Name of service provider [and all names under which it does business] * Name, street address [NOT PO box!] Phone # and email of the Agent * Signature of appropriate officer of the service provider. This should be titled "Interim Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement" and mailed, with $20, to Copyright GC/I&R PO Box 70400 Southwest Station Washington, DC 20024 In addition, the above info [less the signature, of course] should be available via our web page. 2) Dealing with an alleged infringement for material stored here *OR* information linked-to from our site When we become aware of potentially infringing material or receive notification of such, we must "act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material". 3) Being notified By and large, we're not required to be policmen. It is mostly the responsibility of the copyright holders to notify us of alleged infringements. A "full" notification consists of: a) signature [electronic or physical] of copyright holder b) identification of copyright work claimed to have been infringed c) identification of material that is claimed to be infringing d) reasonable info to allow us to contact the complaining party e) a "good faith" statement that the complaining party that the (alleged) infringing material is not being used with the copyright holder's permission f) a statement [under the usual "penalty of perjury"] that the statements are accurate. [I include all this detail because "a notification ... that fails to comply substantially with the provisions [above] shall not be considered ... in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge .... ]. That is, we don't have to "act expediously" until after we know [or have been informed] of the alleged violation and a defective notice does *NOT* constitute 'knowing', and so we don't really have to do anything until the notification is cleaned up.. EXCEPT: If they tell us what's copyrighted, what's infringing *AND* the information on how to contact the complaining party, we are obligated to "promptly attempt[s] to contact the person making the notification ... to assist in the receipt of a notifcation that substantially complies with [the requirements above]." What it means is that we don't have to *do* anything about the alleged infringement, but we -do- have to talk to the complainant to see if we can get the missing particulars of the notification sorted out [*THEN* we have to deal with the alleged infringement] 4) Liability for removed information/links It is best to block access (by renaming or 'mv'ing the file) rather than actually remove files [lest we cause someone some actual harm]. We will be pretty much immune from being sued by the folk whose materials we block access to if: a) We take "reasonable steps to promptly notify the subscriber". I'd say both email -and- US mail. b) Upon receipt of a counter-notification (see below) we must promptly forward the counter-notification onto the the original complainant c) Replace the removed material and/or cease disabling access to it in not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days UNLESS we are informed by the original complainant that they are seeking a court order. [translated: the complainant has ten days to fish or cut bait if challenged] 5) Counter-nofications To file a counter-notification, our subscriber must provide a signed statement identifying the material they want restored and a statement that they believe that the original complaint is mistaken, the subscriber's name, address and phone number, and: " ... a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.. and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification.. or an agent of such person" I think that's about it. There's a lot of other stuff in the Act that [IMO] won't affect us. I have a copy of the Act and the CO interim regulations on my desk if you want to see the real thing. /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From list-managers-owner Fri May 14 23:40:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id XAA12582; Fri, 14 May 1999 23:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dewey.mindlink.net (dewey.mindlink.net [204.174.16.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id XAA12571 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 23:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from l030.abb.dial.paralynx.net ([204.174.29.158] helo=main) by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #10) id 10iXuI-0001UC-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Fri, 14 May 1999 23:26:46 -0700 From: "Mally" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 23:28:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Is this possible? X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Hi: I hope this doesn't sound absolutely off the wall. I'm an LO who's still muddling her way through figuring out the config file. I don't have control of the Majordomo program (thank goodness! ). I'm still at the stage of asking questions that are probably going to make all you knowledgeable folks here roll your eyes in exasperation. :) My apologies in advance for asking this one if it's a really dumb question. BTW, I've checked the archives and the FAQ before posting this. Nothing on the topic in the archives that I could find. Is there a command in the config file that can be used to prevent an individual subscriber from receiving posts from a list without actually unsubscribing them? Just plain unsubscribing them, which is what I'd love to be able to do, isn't possible without causing all kinds of uproar. (Looong story - I won't take up your time up explaining.) On reading the FAQ it seems like 'no-advertise' may be a possibility? Or am I dead wrong on that idea? TIA, Mally :) From list-managers-owner Sat May 15 00:10:52 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id AAA12944; Sat, 15 May 1999 00:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.eskimo.com (mx1.eskimo.com [204.122.16.48]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id AAA12931 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 00:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eskimo.com (berg@eskimo.com [204.122.16.13]) by mx1.eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA23538; Sat, 15 May 1999 00:06:39 -0700 From: Berg Received: (from berg@localhost) by eskimo.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id AAA08009; Sat, 15 May 1999 00:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 00:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199905150706.AAA08009@eskimo.com> To: mail@david-vaughan.com Subject: Re: Copyright law vs. mailing list archives Cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk Actually, a registered copyright just gives the holder more clout in court...creative works are copyrighted automatically when first written. In other words, you don't HAVE to register in order to own a copyright, the registration just makes it easier to enforce your rights. From list-managers-owner Sat May 15 08:00:04 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id HAA20386; Sat, 15 May 1999 07:40:32 -0700 (PDT) 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 HAA20377 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 07:40:21 -0700 (PDT) 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 KAA29933; Sat, 15 May 1999 10:42:24 -0400 (EDT) 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 KAA28738; Sat, 15 May 1999 10:41:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (murr@localhost) by katie.vnet.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA24989; Sat, 15 May 1999 10:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 10:41:19 -0400 (EDT) From: murr rhame To: Berg cc: mail@david-vaughan.com, list-managers@GreatCircle.COM Subject: Copyright FAQ's In-Reply-To: <199905150706.AAA08009@eskimo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk On Sat, 15 May 1999, Berg wrote: > ... In other words, you don't HAVE to register in order to own a > copyright, the registration just makes it easier to enforce your > rights. This is correct. There is a good summary of copyright issues at http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html. This web page has pointers to more detail resources. - murr - From list-managers-owner Sat May 15 08:29:45 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id IAA20760; Sat, 15 May 1999 08:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dewey.mindlink.net (dewey.mindlink.net [204.174.16.4]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with ESMTP id IAA20753 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from l013.abb.dial.paralynx.net ([204.174.29.141] helo=main) by dewey.mindlink.net with smtp (Exim 2.11 #10) id 10igGH-000146-00 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sat, 15 May 1999 08:22:02 -0700 From: "Mally" To: list-managers@greatcircle.com Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 08:23:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Is this possible? X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.11) Message-Id: Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Hi: > I hope this doesn't sound absolutely off the wall. I'm an LO who's > still muddling her way through figuring out the config file. ~~~snip~~~ Please ignore this message. Thank you to those who so very kindly did email me some helpful advice. However, I got told off for asking a question on the list-users@GC because it's only for those who run the Majordomo program itself and was told to use this list instead. Now I've been told that I shouldn't be using this list and to ask my question on the Users list. So I'd best unsub altogether. Again, thank you to those who were so patient and kind enough to help. Mally :) From list-managers-owner Sun May 16 12:58:27 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA08903; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: (mcb@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) id MAA08893 for list-managers@greatcircle.com; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ivan.iecc.com (ivan.iecc.com [208.31.42.33]) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-980202-1) with SMTP id JAA21316 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 09:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24372 invoked by uid 100); 15 May 1999 12:06:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:06:01 -0400 (EDT) From: John R Levine To: Mally cc: list-managers@greatcircle.com Subject: Re: Is this possible? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: list-managers-owner@GreatCircle.COM Precedence: bulk > Is there a command in the config file > that can be used to prevent an individual subscriber from receiving > posts from a list without actually unsubscribing them? No, but if the owner of the majordomo system manually deletes your troublemaker from the file that contains the list of names, he won't get a "you've been removed from the list" message. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From list-managers-owner Sun May 16 13:13:31 1999 Received: (majordom@localhost) by honor.greatcircle.com (8.8.5/Honor-Lists-980720-1) id MAA08916; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:34:0