Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "The Illustrious Mr. Frypp" <JAMES-CUENO@*********.EDU>
Subject: Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 08:55:22 CST
I haven't deleted anybody yet, though lots of people are pushing me
(both to get themselves deleted and to delete others).

I'd rather not have to delete someone. _Most_ of you are
straightening up with only minor prodding. Hell, like I can keep you
from resubscribing anyway.

However, the recent upswing in "Encryption" being added to posts is
pushing me over the edge. PRIVATE headers were created for the sole
purpose of eliminating extraneous encryption outside of message
bodies.

I've warned enough people privately and now I'm warning the majority
of the group: I am now holding "Encryptions" as being carnal
infractions of the FAQ, specifically clause 3.2 regarding headers.
From 0900 CDT today until I resign or am retired as Dread Executor,
there will be no more warnings, only summary deletions for
encryption outside the message body.

jim cueno
dread executor
shadowtk
Message no. 2
From: "Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:55:08 -0400
> I've warned enough people privately and now I'm warning the majority
> of the group: I am now holding "Encryptions" as being carnal
> infractions of the FAQ, specifically clause 3.2 regarding headers.
> >From 0900 CDT today until I resign or am retired as Dread Executor,
> there will be no more warnings, only summary deletions for
> encryption outside the message body.

Woo Hoo! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that was
annoying the hell out of. :-)

-Mark
Message no. 3
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 06:53:39 +0000
On 17 Oct 96 at 14:55, Mark A. Imbriaco wrote:
[snip encryption is now a no-no]
> Woo Hoo! I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that was
> annoying the hell out of. :-)
*grin* had you included it in the FAQ....
(sorry, Mark, you know I really value your work on the list (well, you should
know by now :-))

Sascha
Message no. 4
From: "The Illustrious Mr. Frypp" <JAMES-CUENO@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 08:36:00 CST
> Ummmmm. We had a few problems with this around Xmas... Wasn't the
> general agreement that the encryption involved in a PRIVATE message,
> although good, was too flimsy to stand up to heavy (corp, gov't, etc)
> scrutiny, and that ENCRYPTION was the only way to ensure privacy?

I'm only enforcing the FAQ. And there's nothing there about
encryption outside the message body.

Personally I think the PRIVATE is good enough. The origins of the
PRIVATE header are in the once outrageous practices of adding
encryption to messages. If they still exist, check logs from two,
two and a half years ago. Unless the encryptions were editted off or
altered, you should be able to see how bad it had gotten. My
interpretation of PRIVATE is that any necessary encryption is
already there.

If you _must_ have encryption, it would go inside the message body as
a dramatic anyway. However, I am not advocating that practice
either.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Allright, No More Mr. Nice Dread Executor, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!