Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:34:21 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Free Speech <nofreespeechhere@hotmail.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, gme@inspace.net, isp@freebsd.org, Wu Jie <wujie@mailhost.net> Subject: Re: Web Page Restrictions Message-ID: <19971127163421.54240@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19971127054549.23369.qmail@hotmail.com>; from Free Speech on Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 09:45:47PM -0800 References: <19971127054549.23369.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 09:45:47PM -0800, Free Speech wrote: > Oh! I can't believe it! When I come back after 2 days, I find the > email I used was banned from this mailing list! > > Free Speech and Blue Ribbon can't be found here? FreeBSD has not Free > Speech? :) > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > <isp@freebsd.org> > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > .. while talking to hub.freebsd.org.: >>>> MAIL From:<wujie@mailhost.net> SIZE=3189 > <<< 550 Access denied > 554 <isp@freebsd.org>... Service unavailable Is that still the case? It might be some anti-spam rules. I wouldn't like to think that they had banned you. > Hi folks, sorry for my late response since I was a little bit busy these > several days. This letter is intended to several senders in this mailing > list. Seems an argument on wrap/non-wrap mailers has really been raised. > :-) That's a reasonable statement. > To grog@lemis.com: > >> I suppose I should first apologize for sending the first two messages >> to the mailing list. I hadn't intended to. The first was an >> accident, in the second I hadn't noticed that Wu Jie had deliberately >> copied the list on his reply. > > Hey, Greg, how could you say that? I always cc: messages pertaining to > this > mailing list to the list itself. Most of us do this way. And, if you > have > deliberately sent some mail (eg the mail to Mr. Rick Morel) to the list, > you > needn't append explanations that they are just accidents. Did you know what you're getting alternate long and short lines? I don't normally copy lists on messages in which I disagree with people. I screwed up twice in this particular case. I'm copying the list on this message, though, because you invited me to. > To nate@mt.sri.com: > >> If you want help, format your mail so that it can be seen by people > who >> answer your questions. That means text-terminals with under 80 chars, >> like the email you just sent. Note that your mailer is also misquoting Nate (he didn't put the 'who' on a line by itself). > Firstly, it's not me, it's Mr. Rick Morel. Secondly, I always send my > emails > the same way, on difference in "just sent" or "previously sent". I'm not sure that I understand what this is intended to mean. Nate was raising the same point that I was: if you want people to read your mail, it's common courtesy to send it in a legible manner. If your mailer mangles it, that's your business. >>> It's the world of web now, people get used to hypertext > non-line-break >>> style, what makes you deep immersed in the old command-line-break > world? >> >> Because "that's the rules". If you want to send email over the > internet >> to non-M$ machines, then you gotta follow the rules. In the same >> manner, if Unix people want email to be read by M$ users, they have to >> use short sentences with small words so that they can be read, and not >> too long since it may crashe their mailer if it's too long. :( > > If rules and RFCs are always correct forever, why there are so many > obsoleted rules and RFCs? If "old command-line-break" is the rules of > UNIX, > where are the X11 and XFree86 from? I think that people will gradually migrate towards better standards. This particular "standard" isn't better, it's worse. >> If you want help from people who give it away for free, then make it >> easier for them to give it. > > So you join this mailing list only because you want to get help for > free! I > see. No you don't. The original message was (legitimately) asking for free help. Nobody's complaining about that (yet). > Regards, > Wu Jie Ah. It's you. You had your mailer set up right for a while (first it was one line per paragraph, then it was right, now you have alternate long and short lines). This apprears surprisingly common with Microsoft Outlook. Why is it that many clever people can't persuade it to send straight mail? Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971127163421.54240>