OT: To Doug Taylor Only - Your Turnpike seems to be screwed
John Goodwin
to be screwed]
----
Sorry Doug, I'm afraid I've had to delete your post unread.
I've been trying to avoid the more pointless arguments of late, and I
just haven't the time to deal with obsessives who initiate long
dialogues about how many lines a sig is.
Look, Doug, You must realise by now that you *are* getting obsessional
about this.
If you really can't let it go, I repeat my offer - just post the
source of the RFC that backs up your claim.
But honestly: It's Just Not That Important.
Give it a rest - get out more - try to focus on the things that are
important (hint: sex, diving).
JG
Doug Taylor
<J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> writes
>[Sorry to have to post this to the NG, but Dougie's mail system seems
>to be screwed]
What's up, John? Never had your tail pulled by a simple DSN? :-))
(Hint: There's nothing wrong with my email!)
>Sorry Doug, I'm afraid I've had to delete your post unread.
Then what the hell's the point of carrying on this pointless
conversation - especially back into the newsgroup? I already took it
email once, to avoid filling rec.scuba with more of your scuba-less
postings.
>Look, Doug, You must realise by now that you *are* getting obsessional
>about this.
You post me to tell me you've deleted my post unread, then take it all
back to the newsgroup and have the nerve to call me 'obsessional'? Have
a good look at _your_ behaviour, John.
I won't play your 'flame wars' game. I won't try to belittle you with
diminutives and I won't resort to 'ad hominem' attacks. Sorry.
>just post the
>source of the RFC that backs up your claim.
or go ask the question in a demon.ip.support newsgroup. Sorry to have to
be so patient about this :-)
You know, John, if I wasn't so certain that you're just doing this for a
bit of fun, I'd be worrying about the state of your mental health.
Anyway, safe diving,
--
Doug Taylor mailto:do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
http://www.ivydene1.demon.co.uk/scuba.htm
Sub-Aqua Association UK - 'The Friendliest Divers in the World'
John Goodwin
<do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What's up, John? Never had your tail pulled by a simple DSN? :-))
>
>(Hint: There's nothing wrong with my email!)
If someone sends you an email, and they get a message saying it cannot
be delivered, then the email system as a whole has failed.
When that message comes from *within* your site, then we know which
software must be responsible.
>Then what the hell's the point of carrying on this pointless
>conversation.
Just to let you know that there was no point in sending any more
lectures.
> - especially back into the newsgroup?
Since your system could not deliver the mail there was little choice.
I clearly labeled it OT, and apologised.
> I already took it
>email once,
Yes, but not to a properly functioning email system - one capable of
sustained duplex operation.
> to avoid filling rec.scuba with more of your scuba-less
>postings.
Dougie, *You* were the one who initiated a thread the had the words:
"no discernable scuba content"
And since *my* mail system can deliver posts to me, if you were really
concerned about the NG, you could have sent your reply to me directly.
Crocodile tears methinks.
>You post me to tell me you've deleted my post unread, then take it all
>back to the newsgroup and have the nerve to call me 'obsessional'?
I was just trying to say that you should stop sending me lectures.
Since your email system failed to deliver. I left a message here,
clearly marked so that others did not have to read it.
Less than ideal, but when people can't configure their software ....
>Have
>a good look at _your_ behaviour, John.
Hmm, I've already said that if you will only supply the text, and RFC
number to support your assertion, I'll gladly admit that you are
right.
So, you have the ability to get your own way - or you can simply stop
conversing - I'm quite happy either way.
>I won't play your 'flame wars' game.
No, of course you won't - hence this post ;-)
>I won't try to belittle you with
>diminutives
Johnny, John, Joe - it's all the same to me. I am not so pompous that
I find a friendly form of address an annoyance.
> and I won't resort to 'ad hominem' attacks.
You make several such attacks - you just disguise them (rather
ineffectually).
> Sorry.
Why are you apologising. Do you believe that you *should* be doing
these things :-)
>>just post the
>>source of the RFC that backs up your claim.
>
>Try:
>www.faqs.org/rfcs/
Which RFC contains this mythical extension to the rule?
If such an RFC exists, tell us which one.
> Sorry to have to
>be so patient about this :-)
Now you are apologising for being patient - you seem to have a very
strange idea of which aspects of your behaviour require apologies.
Although I note that in each case that you apologise for something you
claim to have done, or not done, your claim is falacious, so the
apology *is* actually appropriate.
As if your mind is split in two.
For example I wouldn't call claiming that you have RFC support for a
position, and willfully refusing to say which one could really be
called "patient", would you?
Johnny-boy Goodwin
Doug Taylor
<J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:59:53 +0100, Doug Taylor
><do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>What's up, John? Never had your tail pulled by a simple DSN? :-))
>>(Hint: There's nothing wrong with my email!)
>If someone sends you an email, and they get a message saying it cannot
>be delivered, then the email system as a whole has failed.
>When that message comes from *within* your site, then we know which
>software must be responsible.
No failure of the email system occurred. Can't you figure it out yet?
>>Then what the hell's the point of carrying on this pointless
>>conversation.
>Just to let you know that there was no point in sending any more
>lectures.
I can see now that there's no point in sending you anything, John. You
already know it all. I've learned my lesson. I won't take any more of my
replies to you to email.
>> - especially back into the newsgroup?
>Since your system could not deliver the mail there was little choice.
>I clearly labeled it OT, and apologised.
Of course there was a choice. You could have taken the hint and let it
drop. But of course you never can.
FWIW, my email is quite capable of delivering mail to me.
But as you can't work it out, I'll tell you: My mail client is capable
of allowing me to decide whether I read mail, download mail or send it
back to the sender. It's slightly more subtle than posting a reply to
tell someone that you've deleted their message unread.
>> I already took it
>>email once,
>Yes, but not to a properly functioning email system - one capable of
>sustained duplex operation.
The capability is there - but so is the ability to decide what happens
to the email. Don't leap to conclusions before you know at least a
little of the facts. If you were capable of installing Turnpike without
screwing it up, you'd be able to do the same.
>> to avoid filling rec.scuba with more of your scuba-less
>>postings.
>Dougie, *You* were the one who initiated a thread the had the words:
>"no discernable scuba content"
That degree of mendacity really is breathtaking. I still have the thread
named 'R/V Wahoo". *You* initiated the name change to 'Netiquette' - 7
posts later, I added the words 'No discernable scuba content' as a
courtesy to the other ng readers who might otherwise have thought there
was something of interest to them. I originally thought afterwards that
I should have taken it to email then. I now know that there is no point
in taking anything to email with you.
>And since *my* mail system can deliver posts to me, if you were really
>concerned about the NG, you could have sent your reply to me directly.
The DSN message was my reply to you. But I'm forgetting, you can't take
a hint, can you?
>>You post me to tell me you've deleted my post unread, then take it all
>>back to the newsgroup and have the nerve to call me 'obsessional'?
>I was just trying to say that you should stop sending me lectures.
Then say so directly and politely. This newsgroup doesn't need to know
about what you want or don't want.
>Since your email system failed to deliver. I left a message here,
>clearly marked so that others did not have to read it.
>Less than ideal, but when people can't configure their software ....
A very long way short of ideal. But I see what you're getting at, John.
You expect everyone else to read your 'words of wisdom', yet you deal
with replies by mailing the poster to tell them you deleted their
message unread. Then when _your_ posting comes back to you, you find it
necessary to use a public forum for an off-topic message to continue
your attack.
BTW, let me know if you still don't understand how to generate a
Delivery Status Notification - I'll explain to you how to configure
appropriate software.
>>Have
>>a good look at _your_ behaviour, John.
>Hmm, I've already said that if you will only supply the text, and RFC
>number to support your assertion, I'll gladly admit that you are
>right.
>So, you have the ability to get your own way - or you can simply stop
>conversing - I'm quite happy either way.
I already stopped conversing once, but the very existence of this thread
clearly demonstrates the lack of truth in your assertion above.
/************************/
As for the rest, I'll just remind you of your patronising lecture to
Mike Z about the length of his sig that started all of this. I notice
that in all of the following correspondence, you've never once offered
any backup to your quaint idea of what a sig is.
To move things to a conclusion I'll make you a final offer:
Both of us know that a lot of effort is going to be needed to search
1500 RFCs to find out where the '4-line sig' comes from and if that
includes the separator. As I already told you, I found out by asking the
question a long time ago on an *appropriate* newsgroup, so my
information is second-hand and hence not good enough for you.
So I won't expect you do the search: I won't expect you to ask the
question. I'll do the work again, but on one condition - you find even
one person on this newsgroup who agrees with you that a sig starts on
the line *before* the '-- ' as you told Mike it does. Fair enough?
Optionally, you can carry on with your diminutives and 'ad hominems',
and I'll carry on patiently trying to explain to you why that doesn't
work. I'm *very* patient.
bob Crownfield
>
>
>
> I'll do the work again, but on one condition - you find even
> one person on this newsgroup who agrees with you that a sig starts on
> the line *before* the '-- ' as you told Mike it does. Fair enough?
Doug:
AS far as I am concerned, the signature is everything you put after the
_body_ of the message.
It might include your name, dashes, funny little fishes, web addresses,
and email addresses and funny quotes. It is everything after the body of
the message.
To me, your sig below is 4 lines as shown.
John Goodwin
<do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No failure of the email system occurred. Can't you figure it out yet?
The message I got from your Turnpike (amongst a whole heap of other
drivel) was:
|Your message could not be delivered to the following recipients
|do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
Note that it says "could not". Not "didn't want to", or any other
honest message (assuming you are using a killfile).
If your software "cannot" deliver a message to you, then it's f****d
as far as the sender is concerned.
snip
>I won't take any more of my
>replies to you to email.
Well there's not much point if you send messages and then block
answers.
>Of course there was a choice. You could have taken the hint and let it
>drop. But of course you never can.
What hint ?
Your email system was b******d. How was that supposed to be a hint ?
>FWIW, my email is quite capable of delivering mail to me.
I have evidence to the contrary.
>But as you can't work it out, I'll tell you: My mail client is capable
>of allowing me to decide whether I read mail, download mail or send it
>back to the sender. It's slightly more subtle than posting a reply to
>tell someone that you've deleted their message unread.
You mean that you did the net equivalent of throwing a rock and then
running away and hiding.
What a cowardly little runt you are.
>>> I already took it
>>>email once,
>>Yes, but not to a properly functioning email system - one capable of
>>sustained duplex operation.
>
>The capability is there - but so is the ability to decide what happens
>to the email. Don't leap to conclusions before you know at least a
>little of the facts. If you were capable of installing Turnpike without
>screwing it up, you'd be able to do the same.
Whether Turnpike buggered itself or you buggered it, it was not
capable of duplex email operation at the time I sent my message.
>>Dougie, *You* were the one who initiated a thread the had the words:
>>"no discernable scuba content"
>
>That degree of mendacity really is breathtaking. I still have the thread
>named 'R/V Wahoo". *You* initiated the name change to 'Netiquette'
You have shown yourself to be arrogant by expecting other people to do
research to prove your point.
You have shown yourself to be pompous by wittering on about
diminutives.
You have shown yourself to be cowardly by admitting that you sent and
then blocked return messages.
Now you have shown yourself to be a liar.
*You* were the one who started the thread entitled "Netiquette (was:
R/V Wahoo -)".
It was in message ID: <OYgH3BAl...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
Dated: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:58:13 +0100
You then changed the title again to add the "no disc..."
> email - 7
>posts later, I added the words 'No discernable scuba content' as a
>courtesy to the other ng readers who might otherwise have thought there
>was something of interest to them.
Do you assume that all the readers here are so stupid that they cannot
decode the word "Netiquette" at the front of the subject line ?
> I originally thought afterwards that
>I should have taken it to email then. I now know that there is no point
>in taking anything to email with you.
Not if your idea of taking something to email is to fire off a long
screed and then block responses - that's called being a weasel.
>
>>And since *my* mail system can deliver posts to me,
I remind you of what *your* system posted back to me:
|Your message could not be delivered to the following recipients
^^^^^^^^^
|do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
> if you were really
>>concerned about the NG, you could have sent your reply to me directly.
You really are a dozey little prick aren't you ?
I did send my reply to you directly.
>The DSN message was my reply to you. But I'm forgetting, you can't take
>a hint, can you?
Hmm, so that was a reply ?
So are you saying that you read the message and then got turnpike to
lie about the fact that it couldn't be delivered ?
You could hardly have "replied" to it if you hadn't seen it could you?
*More* lies dougie ?
>
>Then say so directly and politely. This newsgroup doesn't need to know
>about what you want or don't want.
Dougie, get a grip.
How could I when you'd apparently screwed up your email ?
(Or for whatever reason it was claiming that it *could not* deliver
the message).
>A very long way short of ideal.
But unfortunately necessary when some plonker goofs up their email
software.
> But I see what you're getting at, John.
>You expect everyone else to read your 'words of wisdom', yet you deal
>with replies by mailing the poster to tell them you deleted their
>message unread.
>Then when _your_ posting comes back to you, you find it
>necessary to use a public forum for an off-topic message to continue
>your attack.
I didn't attack anyone. I just suggested that I didn't need any more
of your long lectures.
>BTW, let me know if you still don't understand how to generate a
>Delivery Status Notification - I'll explain to you how to configure
>appropriate software.
Thanks, but I don't use a killfile. They are for ostriches.
>I already stopped conversing once, but the very existence of this thread
>clearly demonstrates the lack of truth in your assertion above.
No dougie, you didn't stop conversing - you stopped listening - subtle
difference.
When I told you that I'd stopped listening, you had to start again.
i.e. because you couldn't get the last word by hiding behind a
killfile, you started up again.
>/************************/
>
>As for the rest, I'll just remind you of your patronising lecture to
>Mike Z about the length of his sig that started all of this.
This is that lecture in full:
---
Oh, and Mike, your sig is one line longer than recommended by
netiquette, and as one of those lines contains an advert ....
Perhaps you should consider putting your own house in order before
enlisting as a netcop.
---
More gentle chiding than a patronising lecture I would have thought.
Anyway, do you think Zimmerman is incapable of standing up for
himself ?
>I notice
>that in all of the following correspondence, you've never once offered
>any backup to your quaint idea of what a sig is.
No rational person needs backup for the idea that a block starting
with the posters name, and which comes after the body of a message is
the signature.
It's unclear how *anyone* could consider that in the following
----
>Mike
>--
>Mike Zimmerman < zim...@aur.alcatel.com > Alcatel Network Sytems, Ral, NC
>[\] NC Diving: http://users.vnet.com/scuba/ [\]
>A is A. Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
----
The signature does not start with the line "Mike".
>Optionally, you can carry on with your diminutives and 'ad hominems',
>and I'll carry on patiently trying to explain to you why that doesn't
>work. I'm *very* patient.
Well, dougie, there's something that you don't seem to realise about
the expression: 'ad hominem'.
It has two different meanings. Firstly: (of an argument) appealing to
the emotions and not to reason.
I maintain that you are an arrogant sniveling pompous cowardly liar,
and have explained why I maintain that.
I am not, however, using it to prosecute any arguments about sigs or
email systems.
As such 'ad hominem' simply means "relating to or associated with a
particular person". So you are correct in that I have used them, but
they don't need to 'work'.
>I'm *very* patient.
I think if we replace "*very*" with "a", things might start to make
sense :-)
Toodle pip.
JG
robs...@my-deja.com
can I make a few points?
1) You *are* being extremely rude in making a statement about something
(signatures in this case), and expecting others to check it up for you.
2) Goodwin did not start the thread "Netiquette (was: R/V Wahoo -)",
YOU did - it's no good trying to lie about these things - we can check
posts out on deja-news. Goodwin might be long winded on occasion, but I
don't believe he would lie.
3) If your mail system does not deliver incoming mail *for whatever
reason*, you do not have a working mail system. I can't see why Goodwin
felt it necessary to post here, but I have to agree that the
requirement to do so was down to you. I also think that what you did,
if it was deliberate, was very inexcusable. It is acceptable to
killfile people who pester you, but NOT immediately after sending them
a message to which they could be expected to reply.
4) On the matter of the signature block; whether the separator normally
counts is neither here nor there (I agree with you that it doesn't) in
Zimmermann's case. The problem there was that he started his signature
*above* the -- line, and hence had an over length signature. Goodwin
only brought it up because Zimmermann was joining Jammer 6's attack on
the Wahoo captain and hence needed to be squeaky clean himself.
--
Robert Stevans
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
John Goodwin
> I can't see why Goodwin
>felt it necessary to post here,
It wasn't "necessary", but since I had typed it in, there didn't seem
to be any harm.
>4) On the matter of the signature block; whether the separator normally
>counts is neither here nor there (I agree with you that it doesn't) in
>Zimmermann's case. The problem there was that he started his signature
>*above* the -- line, and hence had an over length signature. Goodwin
>only brought it up because Zimmermann was joining Jammer 6's attack on
>the Wahoo captain and hence needed to be squeaky clean himself.
I'm glad someone else sees that.
If the sig block was properly formed, I wouldn't count the sperator as
part of the sig.
Once the sig *has* been started, by the poster's name in this case,
then everything below and including the name line must logically be
part of the sig.
JG
Stevie Imlach
The fact that it could not get to Doug has nothing more to do with Turnpike
than whatever software your using (ie Outlook Express or whatever).
If you send him an email it's not going direct to him. It's going direct to
the server (Demon) and then it is retrieved by turnpike.
A more likely cause is that there is/was a problem with the Demon server or
alternatively it could be your server rejecting the email for some reason.
(Also he could have barred all incoming mail with your address as being the
sender!)
Whilst I totally hate the Turnpike software, it is a very robust package.
It'll work great provided it's been set up properly (which it usually is
not).
That aside, I still don't understand why people choose to use it when they
could use Outlook Express instead.
Stevie
P.S> Before I start getting replies telling me that "obviously my email
experience is minimal and I must be a newbie and who am I to talk about
TPK", it may be worth saying that I work for the same company who own Demon
and up until last month I was a Demon Internet Tech Support Agent. So what
did I support? You guessed it, the dreaded turnpike!!
Doug Taylor
>I don't doubt that Mr Goodwin will make a full reply to your post, but
>can I make a few points?
Of course, and thank you for the polite way you make those points.
>1) You *are* being extremely rude in making a statement about something
>(signatures in this case), and expecting others to check it up for you.
If I am being rude, then please accept my sincere apologies. I have to
say though, that I didn't see it that way. May I take a few moments to
explain why?
My first post to this thread was on Sunday 27 June 1999 in reply to John
Goodwin's post of Wednesday 23 June 1999 (376fb81a....@news.demon.
co.uk) in which he wrote:
--- begin quote John's post ---
>Let's count together John.
>
5 >>Mike
>1 >>--
>2 >>Mike Zimmerman < zim...@aur.alcatel.com > Alcatel Network Sytems, Ral, NC
>3 >>[\] NC Diving: http://users.vnet.com/scuba/ [\]
>4 >>A is A. Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it.
>
>Now is it the big numbers? Are those what are confusing you?
--- end quote John's post
which I took as (i) patronising, (ii) inaccurate. I remember asking a
question some time ago to our ISP support newsgroup about whether the
"-- " was counted as part of the 4 lines and being told that the sig
began with that separator and did not count as one of 4 lines. I pointed
this out to John. I also suggested to John that if he did not believe
me, he could check with one of our support newsgroups or look through
the RFCs if he wished. After all, he had offered no source to back up
his opinion about what a sig was and was the one that started the
lectures (to Mike Z) about *his* sig.
>2) Goodwin did not start the thread "Netiquette (was: R/V Wahoo -)",
>YOU did - it's no good trying to lie about these things - we can check
>posts out on deja-news. Goodwin might be long winded on occasion, but I
>don't believe he would lie.
He did lie. Please check Deja News, if you wish to convince yourself,
but Jammer started the thread with the subject "Beware Bielenda".
Four posts later Joel Silverstein changed the subject to "R/V Wahoo".
The next posts were from Mike Zimmermann, John Goodwin, Hugh Huntzinger,
Mike Zimmermann, John Goodwin, Mike Zimmermann and John Goodwin.
At this point, John had made 3 posts without scuba content under the
title "R/V Wahoo". In my reply to him, I did indeed change the title to
warn the group that it was no longer discussing the original subject.
I apologise for attributing the subject change to John in my previous
post. I do understand that some newsreaders interpret a change of
subject as a change of thread, but the truth is that before I posted my
reply John had made 3 posts on the subject of sigs in this thread and he
knows it:
<376f5793....@news.demon.co.uk>
<376fb81a....@news.demon.co.uk>
<377103f8....@news.demon.co.uk>
Look at the dates.
He is being extremely disingenuous by suggesting that I started the
thread, relying on the fact that I (quite properly, IMHO) changed the
*subject*. He does this only to create a smokescreen to hide the fact
that he was the one that started lecturing people on sigs, relying on
his unsupported view of what he thinks a sig is. His standard reply to
anyone who disagrees with him is to call for documented evidence to
support their view, without ever offering sources to back up what he
asserts.
>3) If your mail system does not deliver incoming mail *for whatever
>reason*, you do not have a working mail system. I can't see why Goodwin
>felt it necessary to post here, but I have to agree that the
>requirement to do so was down to you. I also think that what you did,
>if it was deliberate, was very inexcusable. It is acceptable to
>killfile people who pester you, but NOT immediately after sending them
>a message to which they could be expected to reply.
My system did deliver his mail. It started with the line:
"I've had to delete your mail unread"
Under those circumstances, I thought it appropriate to send it back to
him. After all, he was *not* replying to my previous message, was he?
>4) On the matter of the signature block; whether the separator normally
>counts is neither here nor there (I agree with you that it doesn't) in
>Zimmermann's case. The problem there was that he started his signature
>*above* the -- line, and hence had an over length signature. Goodwin
>only brought it up because Zimmermann was joining Jammer 6's attack on
>the Wahoo captain and hence needed to be squeaky clean himself.
Look at what John quoted from Mike's post. Even if the 'Mike' above the
"-- " were to count (and I think that _strictly_, it doesn't) the sig is
still only 4 lines long if you agree with me that the "-- " isn't one of
the 4 allowed lines.
I hope that will lend you some insight into why I've felt the need to
take John to task. His latest post to this thread is an excellent
example of the standard of his behaviour on this newsgroup and I believe
it's time someone called him on it.
Safe diving,
Doug Taylor
<J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> writes
[Another collection of pointless invective, insults and untruths]
Just three points this time, John:
1. No amount of childish name-calling on your part will advance what
little argument you put forward. Who are you trying to impress with this
sort of behaviour on the ng?
2. If you send me another email starting "I've deleted your post
unread", please expect another DSN. If you won't show me the courtesy of
replying to the points I make, don't expect me to do other than reject
your message. Is that clear enough for you?
3. I was wrong to attribute the subject change in the "Beware Bielenda;
R/V Wahoo" to you. It was indeed my change. It was clearly wrong of me
to even think that you might have had the sense or courtesy to others to
change the subject when you went off-topic several posts earlier. Or do
you think your patronising lecture to Mike which caused me to enter that
thread was appropriate under the subject "R/V Wahoo"?
John Goodwin
<ste...@fastted.in2home.co.uk> wrote:
>Fraid your wrong with this John.
I don't think so, but I can understand why you think I am - if you
look at the bounce message at the bottom of this post you'll see that
it (my email) got to his machine, and turnpike then said it *could
not* deliver the message.
>The fact that it could not get to Doug has nothing more to do with Turnpike
>than whatever software your using (ie Outlook Express or whatever).
No, the gibberish came back from Turnpike. (One email I had sent had
already got through).
>If you send him an email it's not going direct to him. It's going direct to
>the server (Demon) and then it is retrieved by turnpike.
Yes, I know that - but turnpike admitted its involvement in the bounce
message.
>A more likely cause is that there is/was a problem with the Demon server or
>alternatively it could be your server rejecting the email for some reason.
No, as you can see, the bounce definitely came from his machine.
>(Also he could have barred all incoming mail with your address as being the
>sender!)
Now we're cooking with gas!
Obviously that is what happened as I knew from the word go! If the
message came from turnpike, the post *had* been delivered.
Despite the "could not" message, it was obvious that it was a case of
"would not", and the only reason that would happen is if some weasel
had sent a post and then killfiled the person he was sending it to.
>Whilst I totally hate the Turnpike software,
I only used it once, many years back and it was GROSS - slow, clunky,
and fussily designed. Someone else I know tried loading it and it
screwed up their machine so badly they had to reload NT.
Here is the bounce message (in MIME already - what a crock of s**t)
Note that although it is a 44 line message, filled with useless
information, it omitted the vital piece of information - that the site
owner had *deliberately* set it up to reject the email.
----
This is a MIME message
--_Turnpike_+E4(hW(4'w.+J)_Pv(t+D/KV:.EY+kA'/Wjv7cdA
Your message could not be delivered to the following recipients
do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
--_Turnpike_+E4(hW(4'w.+J)_Pv(t+D/KV:.EY+kA'/Wjv7cdA
Content-Type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; ivydene1.demon.co.uk
Received-From-MTA: smtp; punt-11.mail.demon.net
Arrival-Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:17:17 +0100
Final-Recipient: rfc822; do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
--_Turnpike_+E4(hW(4'w.+J)_Pv(t+D/KV:.EY+kA'/Wjv7cdA
Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers
Return-Path: <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk>
Received: from punt-11.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.34])
by ivydene1.demon.co.uk with SMTP id
<qjv+J6Bt...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
for <do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 23:17:17 +0100
Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for
do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk
id 931198878:10:05411:3; Mon, 05 Jul 99 18:21:18 GMT
Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.41])
by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1105030; 5 Jul 99 18:21 GMT
Received: from opticon.demon.co.uk ([158.152.54.193])
by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
id 111DMg-0003bj-0C
for do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:21:15 +0000
From: J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin)
To: Doug Taylor <do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Unread Post
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 18:19:20 GMT
Organization: Opticon
Message-Id: <3780e0be...@post.demon.co.uk>
References: <7klsvk$8nb$0...@216.39.133.9> <376F64...@webspan.net>
<7ko9e4$ik9$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>
<376fb81a....@news.demon.co.uk>
<7kqkca$ni7$1...@aurwww.aur.alcatel.com>
<377103f8....@news.demon.co.uk>
<OYgH3BAl...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
<3778d8b4...@news.demon.co.uk>
<02BpsJAs...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
<3779e141....@news.demon.co.uk>
<7Z8a3CAZ...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
<377c849e....@post.demon.co.uk>
<5CaqRDAH...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5CaqRDAH...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
--_Turnpike_+E4(hW(4'w.+J)_Pv(t+D/KV:.EY+kA'/Wjv7cdA--
----
bob Crownfield
>
> --- begin quote John's post ---
> >Let's count together John.
> >
2: > >1 >>--
3: > >2 >>Mike Zimmerman < zim...@aur.alcatel.com > Alcatel Network
Sytems, Ral, NC
4: > >3 >>[\] NC Diving: http://users.vnet.com/scuba/ [\]
5: > >4 >>A is A. Man who say it cannot be done should not
interrupt man doing it.
What do you call the 'mike' before the '---'? The intro? the subject ?
It is obviously not body text, since it has nothing to do with the
subject.
since it has his name, and is at the end where the sig goes, I call it
sig.
> >Now is it the big numbers? Are those what are confusing you?
> --- end quote John's post
> Safe diving,
John Goodwin
<do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Just three points this time, John:
>
>1. No amount of childish name-calling on your part will advance what
>little argument you put forward.
I'm not calling you names to advance any argument as you would know if
you'd read my last post. I'm calling you names because you warrant
them.
>Who are you trying to impress with this
>sort of behaviour on the ng?
No one. It's just fun when you are dealing with a sanctimonious self
righteous little prig.
>2. If you send me another email starting "I've deleted your post
>unread", please expect another DSN. If you won't show me the courtesy of
>replying to the points I make, don't expect me to do other than reject
>your message. Is that clear enough for you?
So the bounce message *was* a sham. As I suspected.
You read the message and spoofed a non delivery report.
In other words you LIED.
>3. I was wrong to attribute the subject change in the "Beware Bielenda;
>R/V Wahoo" to you. It was indeed my change.
Good. One admission.
>It was clearly wrong of me
>to even think that you might have had the sense or courtesy to others to
>change the subject when you went off-topic several posts earlier.
Just a little bit of thread drift. I (and MZ) were courteous enough to
leave it in the thread where people who were not interested know to
ignore it.
*You* started a new thread with a different title so that everyone had
to look again and decide they weren't interested.
> Or do
>you think your patronising lecture to Mike which caused me to enter that
>thread was appropriate under the subject "R/V Wahoo"?
Dougie-boy, *do* give it a rest about the patronising lecture.
Mike Zimmerman's quite capable of standing up for himself if he agrees
with you that it was a patronising lecture rather than gentle chiding.
JG
Mike Zimmerman
> Goodwin
>only brought it up because Zimmermann was joining Jammer 6's attack on
>the Wahoo captain and hence needed to be squeaky clean himself.
Right wrong does not depend upon the "squeakiness" of the messenger.
That tactic is only used when someone wants to deny responsibility
for their actions, or seeks to allow another to do the same.
But nice try at diversionary tactics.
Mike
--
Mike Zimmerman < zi...@ntrnet.net >
[\] NC Diving: http://www.ntrnet.net/~zimmy/scuba/ [\]
robs...@my-deja.com
>Right wrong does not depend upon the "squeakiness" of the messenger.
No, I did not mean you had to be "clean" to deliver the message, just
to avoid a charge of hypocrisy. Although that seems harsh for a
(disputed) extra line of a signature :-)
>That tactic is only used when someone wants to deny responsibility
>for their actions, or seeks to allow another to do the same.
I think that was the *reason* he did it. I'm not sure what actions need
excusing, but I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.
>But nice try at diversionary tactics.
I'm not trying to divert anything to or from anything.
BTW, Sorry for misspelling your name - I spelled it correctly but my
checker objected and I foolishly took its word.
robs...@my-deja.com
be made.
1) I do not understand why you do not see the action of telling someone
they are wrong about something and yet expecting *them* to go to the
trouble of proving themselves wrong would be considered discourteous
(unless you are, by mutual agreement, their teacher). Evidently you
don't have a problem with this so there's no more to be said.
2) As to the charges of patronizing, it was Zimmermann who started
being patronizing by suggesting that he and Goodman count the lines
together. Goodman then gave as good as he got. For some reason you
ignored Zimmermann's patronizing. The *most* patronizing piece however,
was the piece you wrote some days later when you started
the "netiquette" thread.
3) Both the threads starting OT - To Doug Taylor, exist as a direct
result of your attempt at deception, i.e. faking a non delivery
message. What you did there was to all intents and purposes lying. It's
disturbing that you would do that. What's more disturbing is that you
seem quite happy to admit the deceit as if it were of no consequence.
4) I can still find no evidence of Goodman lying. It seems that you are
basing this claim on a most amazing piece of sophisty, namely that when
you start a new thread it does not count if the topic had been
discussed in another thread. Goodman never claimed that hadn't made non-
scuba related posts, simply that you started the thread, which is
correct as anyone who cares to go to deja-news can see.
5) Commonsense says that a signature starts with a person's name -
that's what signatures have been for hundreds of years. I don't think
it fair to call asking for documentary evidence of a rule that is
contrary to commonsense a "smokescreen".
6) It is true that it is not conducive to good communication when
Goodman starts name calling. Fortunately he doesn't do it often.
I really do wish that you and JG would stop this bickering. I usually
enjoy reading posts from both of you, but this is just bickering and as
it seems to be as a result of a rather silly deceit perhaps now would
be a good time to call a halt.
Doug Taylor
>3) Both the threads starting OT - To Doug Taylor, exist as a direct
>result of your attempt at deception, i.e. faking a non delivery
>message. What you did there was to all intents and purposes lying. It's
>disturbing that you would do that. What's more disturbing is that you
>seem quite happy to admit the deceit as if it were of no consequence.
OK - I can see your logic and sorry you find it disturbing.
My software will _automatically_ fake a DSN if I click a button saying
'Reject Message' and I tend to use it quite casually on any piece of
unsolicited commercial email that I receive. Perhaps I'm too blasé about
using it on UCE and that lead me to simply treat John's last collection
of email insults in exactly the same way.
On reflection, I'm now convinced by your concern and I'll reserve the
DSN's for UCE in future.
>4) I can still find no evidence of Goodman lying. It seems that you are
>basing this claim on a most amazing piece of sophisty, namely that when
>you start a new thread it does not count if the topic had been
>discussed in another thread. Goodman never claimed that hadn't made non-
>scuba related posts, simply that you started the thread, which is
>correct as anyone who cares to go to deja-news can see.
I think we may not be talking about the same thing. My newsreader (and
John's, for that matter) show all of the posts with subjects "Beware
Bielenda; R/V Wahoo; Netiquette, etc." as the *same* thread. They are
all displayed together - changing the subject line does not break the
thread on my display, nor on John's Forte Agent. I must protest that I'm
not using sophistry - it really is a continuation of the same thread as
you will recognise if you can see references to previous messages in the
headers in Deja News.
John accused me of starting it all, knowing full well that I did no more
than reply to his message in the same thread. I still believe it is
courteous to other readers to make a subject change when the content
goes off-topic from the current subject line.
The fact of the matter is that John did indeed start the discussion of
sigs, but was too discourteous or sloppy to make the change of subject
line and then used that to accuse me of starting it all. I didn't.
>5) Commonsense says that a signature starts with a person's name -
>that's what signatures have been for hundreds of years. I don't think
>it fair to call asking for documentary evidence of a rule that is
>contrary to commonsense a "smokescreen".
It looks like John has now found two people who agree with his
definition of a sig, so maybe that needs to be adopted as the definition
we will use in this newsgroup. But please beware if you do. At present,
the charter for the ng allows small adverts within the 4 lines of the
sig. I (and I thought others) accepted that as meaning up to 4 lines
following the "-- ", since our newsreaders work on that premise when
quoting. If _another_ valid definition is going to exist, then we open
ourselves up to interminable debate about whether someone's posting is
breaching the charter or not.
>I really do wish that you and JG would stop this bickering. I usually
>enjoy reading posts from both of you, but this is just bickering and as
>it seems to be as a result of a rather silly deceit perhaps now would
>be a good time to call a halt.
OK, I'll call a halt.
bob Crownfield
>
>
> >5) Commonsense says that a signature starts with a person's name -
> >that's what signatures have been for hundreds of years. I don't think
> >it fair to call asking for documentary evidence of a rule that is
> >contrary to commonsense a "smokescreen".
>
> It looks like John has now found two people who agree with his
> definition of a sig, so maybe that needs to be adopted as the definition
> we will use in this newsgroup. But please beware if you do. At present,
> the charter for the ng allows small adverts within the 4 lines of the
> sig. I (and I thought others) accepted that as meaning up to 4 lines
> following the "-- ", since our newsreaders work on that premise when
> quoting. If _another_ valid definition is going to exist, then we open
> ourselves up to interminable debate about whether someone's posting is
> breaching the charter or not.
>
Doug:
How many sig lines, in your opinion (not real web addresses):
Bob Crownfield,
programming services at progserv.com
Network management at netman.com
Web Services at web.net
Dive Charters at AlphaThree.com
Photography at photo.com
Flight services at fly.com
---
Bob Crownfield
Crown...@Megahits.com
John Goodwin
<do...@ivydene1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My software will _automatically_ fake a DSN if I click a button saying
>'Reject Message' and I tend to use it quite casually on any piece of
>unsolicited commercial email that I receive. Perhaps I'm too blasé about
>using it on UCE and that lead me to simply treat John's last collection
>of email insults in exactly the same way.
>
>On reflection, I'm now convinced by your concern and I'll reserve the
>DSN's for UCE in future.
It seems that I owe you an apology. It was not you who was "lying", it
was turnpike.
It seems to be designed to deceive and confuse when you 'reject' a
message.
Why not just delete unwanted commercial mail? It is well known that
the people who send it are rarely reachable using the return addresses
supplied.
I find it amazing that a supposedly reputable piece of software is
actually designed to deceive people. And make no mistake, that *is*
the intention. A whole heap of spurious information and the "could not
deliver", rather than a simple, honest "message rejected by
recipient".
However, I accused you of lying and it now appears that I was wrong.
>I think we may not be talking about the same thing. My newsreader (and
>John's, for that matter) show all of the posts with subjects "Beware
>Bielenda; R/V Wahoo; Netiquette, etc." as the *same* thread. They are
>all displayed together - changing the subject line does not break the
>thread on my display, nor on John's Forte Agent.
It *does* break the thread on Agent. Agent displays the poster name
instead of "Re: xxx" in all messages other than the first in a thread.
So if the subject changes it considers it a new thread.
After giving it a little thought, I must admit that Turnpike's method
is superior here for a couple of reasons.
> I must protest that I'm
>not using sophistry - it really is a continuation of the same thread as
>you will recognise if you can see references to previous messages in the
>headers in Deja News.
>
>John accused me of starting it all, knowing full well that I did no more
>than reply to his message in the same thread.
No, I said you started the thread. That's how it appeared to me.
> I still believe it is
>courteous to other readers to make a subject change when the content
>goes off-topic from the current subject line.
That would certainly be the case if all NRs behaved as Turnpike - it
would provide useful extra information. With those that behave as
Agent on the other hand, it just means that there are a whole load of
spawned threads. At least I now know *why* some people seem to
(apparently) like stating new threads at the drop of a hat -
Incompatible newsreaders!
>The fact of the matter is that John did indeed start the discussion of
>sigs,
True.
> but was too discourteous or sloppy to make the change of subject
>line
See above :-)
> and then used that to accuse me of starting it all. I didn't.
Honestly, I only said that you started the thread, which it now
appears means different things according to what NR you are using.
>>5) Commonsense says that a signature starts with a person's name -
>>that's what signatures have been for hundreds of years. I don't think
>>it fair to call asking for documentary evidence of a rule that is
>>contrary to commonsense a "smokescreen".
>
>It looks like John has now found two people who agree with his
>definition of a sig, so maybe that needs to be adopted as the definition
>we will use in this newsgroup.
I've said, and I believe Robert said, that we agree that the four
lines start *after* the separator.
It was *only* because MZ put "Mike" above the main sig block that we
say his sig block is too big - on the grounds that you can't discount
a separator if it is not separating anything.
> But please beware if you do. At present,
>the charter for the ng allows small adverts within the 4 lines of the
>sig. I (and I thought others) accepted that as meaning up to 4 lines
>following the "-- ",
With which I think most people agree.
>since our newsreaders work on that premise when
>quoting.
And here you can see the problem with MZ's sig - the "Mike" would be
left in place after the sig was stripped.
>OK, I'll call a halt.
Ditto.
It seems that as much as anything the arguments have been caused by
newsreaders in one way or another.
JG
H NED Huntzinger
>
> Doug:
>
> How many sig lines, in your opinion (not real web addresses):
>
> Bob Crownfield,
> programming services at progserv.com
> Network management at netman.com
> Web Services at web.net
> Dive Charters at AlphaThree.com
> Photography at photo.com
> Flight services at fly.com
> ---
> Bob Crownfield
> Crown...@Megahits.com
Personally, I'd call it either 2 or 10, depending on your definition.
The problem is that the software-included .sig file is only those
two lines that follow after the "-- " delimiter and strictly speaking,
this is the technical (geek) definition, namely the contents of the
..sig file.
However, the effective (human) definition is that it would be the
entire closing to the message, so that would be the whole thing and
in this circumstance, this would include the "---" delimiter line,
so its 10 (7+1+2) lines long.
The problem is that the software has no idea of knowing how your
text ended before it appended the .sig file. If you end a message
with some form of closure, the human interpretation will be that
the "signature" (note: not the same as the .sig) will be longer
than merely the .sig lines.
FWIW, I personally opinion that a closure of:
(Name)
---
(.sig file)
....is not that big of a deal, particularly since this entire issue
is merely one of nitpicking to serve as a distraction to the issues
that were at hand.
But please allow yourself to continue to be distracted as I continue
to catch up on ~3 weeks of accumulated posts from my recent vacation
....and please understand that for poor Mr. Goodwin's mood, its been
"Bloody HOT" by their standards in London last week, namely sunny,
~80F (~27C) and moderate humidity :-).
-hh
John Goodwin
<{rm_to_reply}hum...@webspan.net> wrote:
>....is not that big of a deal, particularly since this entire issue
>is merely one of nitpicking to serve as a distraction to the issues
>that were at hand.
Indeed. I mentioned the sig issue as a little aside, and it got blown
up into WW3.
If Zimmerman had just said: "Big deal !", that would have been the end
of the matter.
JG