[GN] Re: GayNet Digest V25 #579
Roger B.A. Klorese
> ???? Sure it does. I'm staring at them right now. (Not that I'm crazy
> about Yahoo, mind you. They took over Rocketmail.com, which I liked very
> much.)
If it shows you those headers, you should see whether or not
gay...@queernet.org appears in them. If not, it's private. That's
simple.
> Then you also do not understand the protocol.
I beg your pardon? I've been online since the late 70s, on the Internet
and Usenet since 1985, and ran BBS systems in the 80s. I most certainly
do understand "the protocol."
> Long before the Internet,
> were BBS's, where people would participate in group discussions (called
> "newsgroups" these days). It was considered bad form to suddenly start
> posting privately, to any participant in the group...without first
> requesting to do so.
I've never been in any online community where that was true, and as I
said, I've been doing this for well over 20 years. What *is* true is that
it was expected that when someone told you to stop, you'd stop. On the
contrary, it has always been considered *good* etiquette to take issues
not of general interest off the list, and not to waste list bandwidth
asking for permission to do so.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Devil Doll
--- Zeke Krahlin <zk_l...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>--- "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rog...@QueerNet.ORG> wrote:
>> Did it have a [GN] in the subject line?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Besides, it's Yahoo that's broken, because it doesn't show you the To:
>> and CC: headers.
>
>???? Sure it does. I'm staring at them right now. (Not that I'm crazy
>about Yahoo, mind you. They took over Rocketmail.com, which I liked very
>much.)
>
>> > Netiquette requires you to first request if you can send me a message
>> > in private.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>Then you also do not understand the protocol. Long before the Internet,
>were BBS's, where people would participate in group discussions (called
>"newsgroups" these days). It was considered bad form to suddenly start
>posting privately, to any participant in the group...without first
>requesting to do so. This policy has not changed; though certainly many
>newer participants insist they know all about netiquette, regardless of
>how many more experienced people tell them otherwise. I will not waste my
>breath any further on this.
Zeke, everyone knows that you inserted the gaynet address by hand. Quit quibbling about netiquette. You have an intense for attention, and when you saw that your reply would only go to one person you took care of that problem by adding the list address. There is no other way for a response to a private mail to be posted to a list.
Stop lying.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
"Eradicate the cognitive viruses of allegiance and religion"
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
Zeke Krahlin
> gay...@queernet.org appears in them. If not, it's private. That's
> simple.
I have received not one single message from gaynet, that includes
"gay...@queernet.org" in the "from" window. Never, never, never. Are you
saying all the mail from gaynet participants, that I've been receiving, is
actually all private? I doubt that, since this also includes mail from
threads in which I do not participate.
I can reasonably conclude, then, that the gaynet list does not re-send
messages with its own address in the "from" section, and that posters must
do this themselves, to avoid responding personally.
Furthermore, I choose not to bring any discussions from gaynet into the
private venue...and always respond to the list.
> > Then you also do not understand the protocol.
>
> I beg your pardon? I've been online since the late 70s, on the Internet
> and Usenet since 1985, and ran BBS systems in the 80s. I most certainly
> do understand "the protocol."
Well, whatever! I have been personally burned many times myself, in past
years, for those times I began posting privately, rather than remaing in
the list. I have long since learned my lesson. I assure you that you are
ill informed, to believe it's okay for list participants to post privately
without first requesting to do so, to the person in question.
>
> I've never been in any online community where that was true, and as I
> said, I've been doing this for well over 20 years.
I find that so unusual, as to be unlikely your experience.
> it was expected that when someone told you to stop, you'd stop.
Stop what? No one told me to stop anything. Nor do I take orders, or act
upon wishes not expressed to me directly. I refuse to be charged with the
"crime" of not reading another's mind.
> contrary, it has always been considered *good* etiquette to take issues
> not of general interest off the list, and not to waste list bandwidth
> asking for permission to do so.
That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. These supposedly "private"
messages were indistinguishable from those in the list. And the topics
therein were completely relevant to the thread in which they arose. You
are incorrect on at least two counts: (1) incorrect in your understanding
of netiquette when it comes to private messages from list groups, and (2)
incorrect in accusing me of participating in off-topic conversations on
the list. Hopefully, you are not psychologically preparing to censor
me...as I find such approach that you are taking, is often a premise
(however weak) to do just that. I have experienced homophobic bigots do
just that, as well as right-wing queers. Same old, same old.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
Zeke Krahlin
> Zeke, everyone knows that you inserted the gaynet address by hand. Quit
> quibbling about netiquette. You have an intense for attention, and when
> you saw that your reply would only go to one person you took care of
> that problem by adding the list address. There is no other way for a
> response to a private mail to be posted to a list.
>
> Stop lying.
Your attempts to set me up for elimination are shallow. The "from" window
in your message did not include "gaynet", though you did cc to gaynet. So
I have no choice but to manually paste the gaynet address into the "to"
window before posting.
You are taking advantage of gaynet's semi-awkward list management, as an
excuse to blast me. This just shows how low you are, when it comes to
those whose ideas you resent. You do not play fair, even with other
gays...you only know one kind of game: dirty pool. You go for the jugular
the moment such opportunity affords you. If you can't debate
intelligently, you resort to vulgar methods.
I have no obligation to anyone, to respond in private to any letter from
anyone in this group. Especially those who harass or insult me. You are
making the rules as you go along. Unless a member of a list requests to
participate privately, to another member, he must assume that all
responses will be public. You cannot cry "foul" if you don't first make
such a private arrangement...to which the recipient must also agree. That,
my non-friend, is netiquette. The list manager of gaynet is incorrect in
this matter.
Devil Doll
> wrote:
>--- Devil Doll <devi...@godisdead.com> wrote:
>> Zeke, everyone knows that you inserted the gaynet address by hand. Quit
>> quibbling about netiquette. You have an intense for attention, and when
>> you saw that your reply would only go to one person you took care of
>> that problem by adding the list address. There is no other way for a
>> response to a private mail to be posted to a list.
>>
>> Stop lying.
>
>Your attempts to set me up for elimination are shallow.
There is no need for that. Nobody is reading or responding to your increasingly insane posts. "Civil war" indeed.
>The "from" window
>in your message did not include "gaynet", though you did cc to gaynet. So
>I have no choice but to manually paste the gaynet address into the "to"
>window before posting.
Hello? Anyone home? The GayNet address always comes in the "To:" line, and this is the case for at least half of the 40+ mailing lists I'm on. It's always been this way and if in your amazing two decades online you haven't noticed this, then you have yet another issue to mention to your psychiatrist.
You pasted in the GayNet address by hand because you didn't want your words lost to posterity. Perhaps you think that some future archiver is going to release "The Collected Writings of Ezekiel Krahlin" as a special volume with tooled leather binding and sulfite-free paper, recounting the glorious overthrow of the Great Heterosexisticalistcal Conspiracy, and you're concerned that your own backups might be lost.
>You are taking advantage of gaynet's semi-awkward list management, as an
>excuse to blast me. This just shows how low you are, when it comes to
>those whose ideas you resent. You do not play fair, even with other
>gays...you only know one kind of game: dirty pool. You go for the jugular
>the moment such opportunity affords you. If you can't debate
>intelligently, you resort to vulgar methods.
Are you through?
You don't have any ideas to resent, and this thread is not about your comical sense of persecution or your rabid and all-consuming hatred of the society that you can't find any place it. This thread is about the simple and indisputable fact that you don't know how to use email and and you post private mail to public lists because you like an audience.
>I have no obligation to anyone, to respond in private to any letter from
>anyone in this group. Especially those who harass or insult me.
Twig, dude: you're not important enough to harass or insult. Now go compose another high-drama diatribe about how the nasty ol' turncoats are trying to keep down your courageous voice of truth and justice. I won't read it and I doubt anyone else will either. People have you pegged as another boring lunatic.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
"Eradicate the cognitive viruses of allegiance and religion"
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
**********
Roger B.A. Klorese
> "gay...@queernet.org" in the "from" window. Never, never, never.
It does not and SHOULD NOT appear in the From: header; it's not FROM the
list, it's sent through the list. It should appear in the To: or
CC: header. If you don't see it there, Yahoo is mishandling it.
> I can reasonably conclude, then, that the gaynet list does not re-send
> messages with its own address in the "from" section, and that posters must
> do this themselves, to avoid responding personally.
No, posters must user reply-to-all.
> Well, whatever! I have been personally burned many times myself, in past
> years, for those times I began posting privately, rather than remaing in
> the list. I have long since learned my lesson. I assure you that you are
> ill informed, to believe it's okay for list participants to post privately
> without first requesting to do so, to the person in question.
No, I'm informed by people other than those who informed you. I assure
you that there is simply no way that you are MORE informed than I on this,
though perhaps DIFFERENTLY informed.
> > I've never been in any online community where that was true, and as I
> > said, I've been doing this for well over 20 years.
>
> I find that so unusual, as to be unlikely your experience.
Well, you're wrong, and you have no idea what my experience is. I ran the
Usenet site "celtics" (later "celtics.celerity.com") starting in 1985. I
ran the LOLA BBS in Boston in the mid-1980s. I was on other BBS systems
even earlier. I started out on-line using XTALK at Dartmouth College in
1974.
> > it was expected that when someone told you to stop, you'd stop.
>
> Stop what? No one told me to stop anything. Nor do I take orders, or act
> upon wishes not expressed to me directly.
If you send unsolicited private responses -- which IS appropriate
according to netiquette -- and the recipient tells you to stop, you stop.
> That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. These supposedly "private"
> messages were indistinguishable from those in the list.
Only on a broken mail system. As I said, if the system does not trash the
To: and CC: headers, if gay...@queernet.org appears in one of these, it's
a public post. If it does not, it is a private mail message. If you
NEVER see gay...@queernet.org in the To: or CC: headers (NOT the
From: header, which is a violation of the mail RFCs), your mail system is
broken.
> And the topics
> therein were completely relevant to the thread in which they arose. You
> are incorrect on at least two counts: (1) incorrect in your understanding
> of netiquette when it comes to private messages from list groups, and (2)
> incorrect in accusing me of participating in off-topic conversations on
> the list.
On the first, you are free to think me wrong, but it is the rule and law
on this list. I am saying now, whatever you think global netiquette is,
that:
a) It is the law of the GayNet list that you MAY reply privately to any
public post
b) You MAY NOT request permission on the list to do so
c) You MUST terminate the private conversation when the recipient directs
you to
d) You MAY NOT repuublish, or respond to, private posts here
e) The inability of your mail tool to show you the correct To: and CC:
headers that allow you to distinguish between public and private
posts MAY NOT be used as an excuse
These rules are my executive mandate and are not open to discussion, no
matter what you think netiquette is.
On the second, I am not accusing you of participating in off-topic
discussions on the list. I'm accusing you of reposting private mail, and
your claim that Yahoo wouldn't let you distinguish it is no excuse.
> Hopefully, you are not psychologically preparing to censor
> me...as I find such approach that you are taking, is often a premise
> (however weak) to do just that. I have experienced homophobic bigots do
> just that, as well as right-wing queers. Same old, same old.
If "follow the rules or leave" is censorship, then I am preparing to
censor you, and I'm proud of it. They have nothinhg to do with content,
only with your invasion of privacy... and, apparently, your inability to
find a standards-conforming mail tool. Please think of me as a right-wing
queer if that's the conclusion to which this leads you; I haven't laughed
so hard in years.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Roger B.A. Klorese
> in your message did not include "gaynet", though you did cc to gaynet. So
> I have no choice but to manually paste the gaynet address into the "to"
> window before posting.
If he CC'd gaynet, then it was a public post. If he did not, it was not.
If he CC'd gaynet, you hit reply-to-all. Period.
Zeke Krahlin
> > "gay...@queernet.org" in the "from" window. Never, never, never.
>
> It does not and SHOULD NOT appear in the From: header; it's not FROM the
> list, it's sent through the list. It should appear in the To: or
> CC: header. If you don't see it there, Yahoo is mishandling it.
There are two schools of thought on this, regarding list management. One
school says never to "muck" with the header, so leave the poster's
personal e-mail in the "from" window. This then requires the poster to
manually insert the list address.
The other school says yes, "muck" with the header so that the poster's
address is concealed, and only the list's address appears there.
I belong to a variety of e-mail lists...all of which, but two, use the
"muck" method. So it is not easy for me to get in the habit to accommodate
the other two (gaynet and another)...and I forget to change the private
address to the list one.
I have never bothered to use the "reply all" option, as I regard this as
an intrusion to list participation. I am either allowed to participate in
a list, or not. Anyone who wants to post privately, should first make that
request, instead of assume. That is the tradition of e-mail lists, and
part of netiquette.
Personally, I am not a purist when it comes to mucking with the header to
simplify user participation...but I am a purist, when it comes to simply
using the "reply" option. Traditionally, I've not been involved in lists
that weave in and out between private and public participation...and see
no sensible reason to accommodate this method...as it breaks with
netiquette convention.
It was wrong of some members to accuse me of actions that were not my
intent; but merely a usual assumption that messages coming to me from this
list--messages which contained the exact same subject as the public
threads--are grist for the public mill. It seems they are exaggerating my
action, not for any just cause, but because they resent my ideology which
conflicts with theirs.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
**********
Roger B.A. Klorese
> There are two schools of thought on this, regarding list management. One
> school says never to "muck" with the header, so leave the poster's
> personal e-mail in the "from" window. This then requires the poster to
> manually insert the list address.
>
> The other school says yes, "muck" with the header so that the poster's
> address is concealed, and only the list's address appears there.
Yes, and one school conforms to the standard RFCs, and one does not.
> Personally, I am not a purist when it comes to mucking with the header to
> simplify user participation...but I am a purist, when it comes to simply
> using the "reply" option.
Well, you're doomed to failure here, because I am a purist with regard to
standards documents, and they forbid changing the From: header.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
afn0...@afn.org
>There are two schools of thought on this, regarding list management. One
>school says never to "muck" with the header, so leave the poster's
>personal e-mail in the "from" window. This then requires the poster to
>manually insert the list address.
Roger said:
>If he CC'd gaynet, then it was a public post. If he did not, it was not.
>If he CC'd gaynet, you hit reply-to-all. Period.
A few points here:
1. I am subscribed to quite a few diverse lists.
2. On some of these, when I hit reply the individual poster's address
appears, and with others the list posting address appears in the To: section.
3. I doubt that Roger would be wrong about gaynet's hosting policies.
However, I *think* that this is not "mucking" with headers on the lists
which allow the list address to pop up when one hits reply--I think this may
be a valid option on some lists. Those I receive who do this, also have the
individual's e-mail address in the header.
4. I learned something; I'm glad we had this little chat. Because, lo these
many years I thought Roger chose to run his list this way to attempt to
eliminate some of the constant bickering which seems to go on between 2 or 3
people who flood my mailbox with more posts than any list I've ever seen.
5. The Eudora version I have at home diesn't even *have* a "reply to all"
option! :-) LOL
Happy posting!
afn0...@afn.org
Maybe (in all seriousness) the information discussed shows up differently
using different programs. I choose to receive *all* header information,
though I can turn this off. In my last message I did have to delete Roger's
e-mail address and type in gaynet's.
I hate to add to the clutter of which I complain, but maybe what is below
may help in this header deal. When my last post popped up from the list
(notice there is a sender and a from and I have filters set up so that mail
received from lists as opposed to mail sent *only* to me show up in
different colors), this is what the *full* header looked like. Hopefully
this will help this thread....
Received: from dorothy.queernet.org (majo...@dorothy.queernet.org
[209.24.233.48])
by freenet6.afn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.1.2) with ESMTP id VAA02065;
Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:27:38 -0400
Received: by dorothy.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) id e7K1IIs01842
Received: from freenet6.afn.org (freenet6.afn.org [128.227.163.16]) by
dorothy.queernet.org (8.10.0.Beta12/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id
e7K1ICW01834; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:18:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dialup27.afn.org (dialup27.afn.org [128.227.163.127])
by freenet6.afn.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/1.1.2) with SMTP id VAA01298
for <gay...@queernet.org>; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:16:05 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:16:05 -0400
Message-Id: <2.2.16.20000819...@pop.afn.org>
X-Sender: afn0...@pop.afn.org
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: gay...@QueerNet.ORG
From: afn0...@afn.org
Subject: Re: [GN] Re: GayNet Digest V25 #579
Sender: owner-...@QueerNet.ORG
Precedence: bulk
Status:
>
>A few points here:
Naomi Himmelhoch
I just wanted to respond to one or two things:
>Are you
>saying all the mail from gaynet participants, that I've >been receiving, is
>actually all private? I doubt that, since this also >includes mail from
>threads in which I do not participate.
He said nothing of the sort. He said that the header has [GN] in it. As
you no doubt know, due to your vast and hoary experience on the Internet, it
can only appear if it has gone through Roger, and would indicate it was from
the list and not a private mailing. Also, the "From" header will always
list the author of an email that appears on a list, because it is written by
him, but the "Reply-To" header is kind of a dead give-away.
For a guy with all your intimidating experience, you seem strangely
unfamiliar with the meanings of common email headers. Maybe there is an
appropriate "Dummies" book that could give you a few pointers.
>I can reasonably conclude,
I doubt that you have ever drawn a reasonable conclusion in your life.
(Oooh, the dreaded personal attack, based only on my perusal of 60 or 70
aimless and droning emails from you, of 4-10 pages each! How could I be so
unjust!)
>Furthermore, I choose not to bring any discussions from gaynet into the
>private venue...and always respond to the list.
Too bad.
> > > Then you also do not understand the protocol.
> >
> > I beg your pardon? I've been online since the late 70s, on the Internet
> > and Usenet since 1985, and ran BBS systems in the 80s. I most certainly
> > do understand "the protocol."
>
>Well, whatever!
Incisive comeback, that really knocked him off his chair.
>I have been personally burned many times myself, in past
>years, for those times I began posting privately, rather than remaing in
>the list. I have long since learned my lesson.
Zeke, those people weren't objecting to the fact that someone wrote to them
off list, they were objecting to the fact that *you* did. That someone once
snapped at you for sending them a private email (probably 4-10 pages of
rambling hysterics, I would imagine) hardly makes you an authority on
netiquette.
>I assure you that you are ill informed, to believe it's
>okay for list participants to post privately
>without first requesting to do so, to the person in question.
Right, because what would Roger know about what is permissible on Gaynet?
> > it was expected that when someone told you to stop, you'd stop.
>
>Stop what? No one told me to stop anything. Nor do I take orders, or act
>upon wishes not expressed to me directly. I refuse to be charged with the
>"crime" of not reading another's mind.
Right! Don't take crap from LISTSERV Nazis who are going to try to charge
you with crimes. Since I'm Jewish, I can certainly relate to your
Nazi-phobia.
Sarcastic mocking aside, he wasn't telling you to stop anything. You are
taking him out of context, as you no doubt already knew, and certainly
should have known, if you actually read the sentence.
>You are incorrect on at least two counts: (1) incorrect in your
>understanding
>of netiquette when it comes to private messages from list groups,
Oh, I believe *you* Zeke, your angry insistence beats Roger's extensive
experience all hollow.
>(2) incorrect in accusing me of participating in off-topic conversations on
>the list.
Huh? When did this occur? It certainly didn't happen in the letter to
which you are referring... could it be a HALLUCINATION?
>Hopefully, you are not psychologically preparing to censor
>me...as I find such approach that you are taking, is often a premise
>(however weak) to do just that.
I have great faith that Roger would not need to psyche himself up, if that
were what he wanted to do. But due to his "Radical Egalitarianism", I don't
buy it.
>I have experienced homophobic bigots do
>just that, as well as right-wing queers. Same old, same old.
Zeke, "Same old, same old" could be your motto, for all the level of
originality you have injected into this discussion.
Unfortunately, we must tolerate your organic brain disorder. If you could
manage to get a handle on the galloping paranoia, however, I am sure it
would be welcome by more than just me. (Don't *begin* wasting your time
responding to the word "paranoia," I could write your letter for you
myself.) It might help you with that hysteria you seem so prone to, as well.
What's that? You say you aren't a hysteric? Well, "I assure you", I've
never been mistaken, "never, never, never."
Sincerely,
Naomi Himmelhoch
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Mathemagician
>It does not and SHOULD NOT appear in the From: header; it's not FROM the
>list, it's sent through the list. It should appear in the To: or
>CC: header. If you don't see it there, Yahoo is mishandling it.
Indeed, it isn't in the From header since the author the post is from
isn't the list. However, the originating mail server that sent it to
*my* mailbox is, indeed, the list and thus, that address is in the
Sender header as well.
> > I can reasonably conclude, then, that the gaynet list does not re-send
> > messages with its own address in the "from" section, and that
> posters must
> > do this themselves, to avoid responding personally.
>
>No, posters must user reply-to-all.
No, posters must simply edit their headers. Double-posting is also
poor form. I didn't sign onto a mailing list to have two copies of
every thread I respond to show up.
I don't understand why the concept of editing headers is so difficult
for people to grasp. You edit the Subject line when you start to veer
away from a thread. And when you do, you include the original Subject
line so that people who don't want to read any of it can easily filter
out the old Subject.
And you don't double-post. Mail sent directly to a person is
private. Mail sent to the list is public. What is it if it's sent to
both? "But the list might delay my response so I want to make sure he
gets it by sending it directly to him" is no excuse. This is a
mailing list, not an interactive chat. My mailbox is not a dumping
ground. I don't need two copies of everything.
The only person who has control over where a post goes is the person
sending it. It is that person's responsibility to decide whether or
not that post is public or private and send it to the appropriate
place. To the list is public. To the person is private.
And never the twain shall meet.
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
Mathemagician
>He said nothing of the sort. He said that the header has [GN] in
>it. As you no doubt know, due to your vast and hoary experience on
>the Internet, it can only appear if it has gone through Roger, and
>would indicate it was from the list and not a private mailing.
Not necessarily. That is, the presence of [GN] is not necessarily an
indication that it came from the list since a person might be
responding privately to a public post.
That is, I post to the list with a Subject of "Foo." When it gets
sent out of the list server, the Subject line is now "[GN] Foo." If
someone responds to that post using "Reply" (instead of "Reply-All"
since double-posting is poor form), whether it gets sent to me
directly or to the list, it will most likely have a Subject line of
"Re: [GN] Foo."
So which is it, public or private? Well, you figure that out the way
you always should: Check the headers. You always, always, always
check the headers. That's what they're there for.
The test is not that if it has [GN], then it's public since some
private mail has [GN] in the subject line, too. The test is that if
it does *not* have [GN], then it's private since all mail from gaynet
has [GN] in the Subject line.
Really, folks. It all comes down to "Edit your headers." I don't
understand why this is so upsetting for some people (not you, Naomi,
but your post brought it to my mind.)
--
Brian P. Evans | Yeah, I used to work for Bill Gates
rrh...@ix.netcom.com | ...but I got better.
**********