** Sometime around 20:12 -0600 11/02/2000, Alan S. Harrell said:
>On 2 Nov 2000, 17:58, Adam Bailey wrote:
> > On 11/2/00 3:52 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote...
> > >LEAVE
Parents didn't raise you right, did they, Peter?
> > Does that mean I can't make fun of this guy because his message was
> > confidential?
We appear to have been the intended recipients (?), so it looks like
it's fair game.
>I've seen this disclaimer a few times before from subscribers on my
>lists and others. One subscriber told me that his employer put that on
>every outgoing message and he had no control over it.
Yep, I can confirm that there are employers who do that. Law firms
appear to be especially fond of the practice (law firms doing
something utterly inane; imagine that).
>Whether or not you find it offensive or in your case, grist for the
>humor mill, you have to admit it is a little wasteful, bandwidth-wise.
If it shuts down the to-HTML-or-not-to-HTML thread, I'm all for it.
Might even consider getting Pete back on the list, just so he can
leave every time another rhetorical topic comes up. Speaking of
which, anyone have the URL for the
reply-to-munging-considered-life-threatening page? I was describing
it to a particular list server developer, and he didn't believe that
the page was for real. I want him to see for himself.
>I think were it ever to become prevalent on my lists, I might consider
>bouncing those messages.
IMO, you'd be setting the bar for entry a little high. I try to tune
the filters to block only those things that the user has control over
-- such as long signatures (of the voluntary variety) and poor
quoting practices. But to each his own. After all, there's a reason
that there are many different lists -- and many different list
Vince Sabio Got Bounces? <http://www.smartbounce.com/>
email@example.com Got Jokes? <http://www.humournet.com/>
Got Spam? <http://www.cauce.org/>
From: Roger Burton West <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: "Alan S. Harrell" <email@example.com>