pmdatropos@aol.com writes:
> Personally, I don't see what the continuation of this thread has to do with
> managing mailing lists, so I encourage further discussion to take place in a
> more appropriate forum.
It has a lot to do with it.
AOLers (and others, for sure) have been a list management headache
for some time. Some of us have shorter tempers than others. A
thorough airing of the true sequence of events in this debacle, is,
IMHO, extremely important to anyone even toying with the idea of
making AOL angry.
> Mr Rzepela only received *carbon-copies* of messages sent to other
> individuals. My *original* response was to him, this list (which was delayed
> due to an error on my part; heaven forbid I actually be human and make
> mistakes), and two other individuals.
I get the digest. I still haven't seen either of the
messages you sent to me appear here, except that I was
gracious enough to forward the first one.
Regardless of where they were supposed to go, you DID,
in the second, attribute someone else's moaning about AOL to me,
and that attribution was WRONG. Seeing the heavy penalties one
suffers for moaning about AOL these days, that is a pretty serious
misattribution.
> You are, of course, welcome to believe what you will. We are satisfied that
> the investigation performed by NASA on its equipment was sufficient.
You were also satisfied that you knew how to work email.
> Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them*
> that something had happened.
You have absolutely no basis for saying that.
Unless there was some other mail that still hasn't gotten from
you to the list, I have seen NO evidence that the "government"
site did anything except shut down a filmmakers' list, which,
while annoying, is certainly within their domain (i.e., making sure
their resources are being spent as they see fit).
> Our role in this affair was to alert them to a possible security
> breach at one of their machines.
And what, exactly, was this "security breach"? What measures,
exactly, did they take, apart from shutting down a list that
wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, a piece of information
probably discovered in their "investigation"?
This statement:
> Clearly they must have found evidence which indicated *to them*
> that something had happened.
is just stoopid.
Sounds to me like somebody pissed off AOL, and paid.
If that's the way you people operate, it IS a list managers' issue.
+------ Anthony J. Rzepela rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu -----+
| Hahnemann University, Philadelphia (215) 762-7741 |
| I do not speak for, or represent, Hahnemann University or AHERF. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Follow-Ups:
|
|
