[Top] [All Lists]

Re: List Posting Etiquette

To: alpines@autox.team.net (Alpines), tigers@autox.team.net (Tigers)
Subject: Re: List Posting Etiquette
From: tjhiggin@mapapp1.iss.ingr.com (T.J. Higgins)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:11:04 -0600 (CST)
Actually, Steve, your message was rejected because it contained the 
phrase "Ed*t your replies."  :^)

I don't know exactly when mjb added this rule to the mail server on 
autox.team.net.  It certainly was not announced.  In any case,
notification is hereby given to all Alpines and Tigers list members
that if the phrase "Ed*t your replies" appears in your message, your
message will be rejected by the mail server software.


Steve Laifman wrote:
> Note: This was previously sent, but apparently rejected as the "bad word 
> monster" did not like
> such an exact quotation of the "unacceptable language"  :-)
> So it was "edited" to avoid the censor.  Hope this doesn't end up being 
> a duplication
> -------- Original Message (Edited)--------
> Subject:      List Posting Etiquette
> Date:         Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:32:45 -0800
> From:         Steve Laifman <SLaifman@SoCal.rr.com>
> Organization:         TigersUnited.com
> To:   Tiger's Den <tigers@autox.team.net>, 'Alpine's Peak' 
> <alpines@autox.team.net>
> RE: List Posting Etiquette
> I suppose many have noticed their postings have been "annotated" by a 
> signature text looking something like this:
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> +++     http://vvv.team.net/the-one    +++
> +++  unsubscribe/change address requests to major-demo@auto.team.nut  or try
> +++  http://vvv.seam.net/cgi-bin/majorcooloff
> +++  http://vvv.seam.net/mailperson/listinfo
> +++  Archives at http://vvv.team.nut/archimedes
> +++  Ed*t your replies!
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> This is a new feature, apparently, of our List. It is to remind us to 
> edit our replies so they do not become endless chains of repeated 
> information.  This is a GREAT idea, and only fitting and proper 
> housekeeping.
> There is an apparently new "corollary rule" that is rejecting postings 
> that do NOT do this!!  How do they know?  The above addition should have 
> been edited out of any reply to the list.  If it is there, the clean-up 
> was obviously not done.  Neat and simple.  Unfortunately, the rule was 
> not stated.  Thanks to Theo, who got bitten by a bounce for this, I now 
> know.
> It is only fair to pass this along, so the rest of the list can abide by 
> the new rules, and not get their postings bounced.
> Now, I wonder what the next unannounced improvement might be?  { 9 - )
> Steve
> -- 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>