Date:	Mon, 15 May 1995 13:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
From:	RDC <rdc AT freenet DOT vancouver DOT bc DOT ca>
Subject:	Re: Header re-writing
To:	Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

On Sat, 13 May 1995, Stephen Turnbull wrote:
>    From: RDC <rdc AT freenet DOT vancouver DOT bc DOT ca>
>    On Tue, 9 May 1995, Philip Taylor wrote:
>    > each message claims to come from the originator rather than from the list.
>    > Would it be acceptable to the majority of readers of/contributors to
>    Yes !
> I was hoping *not* to have to say anything in public, but obviously
> somebody needs to.
> 
> It is *not* legal to rewrite the headers in the fashion suggested.
> According to RFC822, the Reply-To: header is for the use of the
> *sender*, to redirect replies in case she is using a different
>[sniped heavily] 
> I have no sympathy for people who produce gems such as this:
> 
>     Subject: Re: Header re-writing
>     To: Philip Taylor <CHAA006 AT alpha1 DOT rhbnc DOT ac DOT uk>
>     Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu, CHAA006 AT alpha1 DOT rhbnc DOT ac DOT uk
> 
> I guess poor Philip wanted 3 copies (list plus two personal) in the
> opinion of the sender of that message?  Maybe  he deserves it for
> starting the thread ;-)
> 
> Learn to use the software you have, don't suggest breaking the
> mechanisms that have been worked out to make it possible for unbroken
> software to do exactly what you want efficiently with minimal typing
> input.
> 

 Basically a desperate plea for a solution rather than  ....
Well never mind I WILL NOT engage in a twenty letter follow-up to determine
a misunderstanding of style ...

 I just hit sort and arranged by subject ...
I was able to delate 62 (Yes, Sixty Two !!!!!! !!) messages based on subject
alone (not from this list I AM MOST GRATEFUL) of some extreme moron, the
most simplest fool ever permitted to live, that tried to unsubscribe 
repeatedly to another mailing list; they did not even allow time for the
rejected message to be processed before they sent another a few minutes 
later !!!!!! !!

I thought the subject had died and I too held MY tongue about things.

I recall deleting (just a few days ago) some 40 "unscrib dxjwap please DJ"
messages on this list should it ever arise that _I_ had complained about 
things foolish.

 I can not help but think that a few days AFTER someone is started on (ANY)
list that they ought to be sent a "questionaire" (automagically) that quizes
them on the proceedure to remove themselves from a list.

 I (maybe not you, but _-I-_) get 125 (or more) messages a day; should I ever
be so foolish as to have a life and not read my mail for a day it doubles 
(obviously!) and if I have something (more) important to do than sift and 
sort it can triple (or worse someone can send numerous requests to be 
removed).

 Based on my address perhaps it can be determined that _-I-_ do not actually
have to PAY A DIME to use this system - EVEN SO   _-I-_ treat this system
as thought the money came from _-MY-_ pocket (as it comes from another KIND
persons instead). I also presume (if I may without flames) that Stephen
understands this ( this is NOT a flame against him, 'just a reply to the 
thread' ). I know DJ understands this as we have discussed this; he is no 
doubt the MOST kindest as he gets all the messages the list does, plus 
personal mail (regarding GCC), plus "pleas to the master" from those that
don't (can't!) read the .FAQ; no doubt he also intercepts the "unsjkdscribble
djbcc please JJ" messages so that the person is kicked off as they have 
attempted to request.

 Previously it was suggested by MR. "X" that I might have started a flame
war with my last complaint; that did not materialize. I got a lengthy
message from ONE person and a personal poke from my aqaintance (Bill ;> )
and a further poke from him publically; (graciously accepted, _-I-_ think).

 I just wish this system was not blasted with 125+ a day ...

 Flame me personally (_IF_ you must, don't hack everyone one the list).
but YOU will have to wait for me to read over 100 messages before I 
respond (IF I DO).

PS: 'cuse speelin' an' typos, I've mail to read !

Robert
RDC AT freenet DOT vancouver DOT bc DOT ca  UNIX(r) System V Release 4.0  [142.103.106.2]
http://www.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca    incoming:// 49 15 00 N   123 07 00 W

- Raw text -