Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: William Lydick <lydick@*******.CNS.UDEL.EDU>
Subject: Whoops
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 14:53:38 EST
ERROR! The time stamp of "Internal Lone Star Memo" should be as follows:


-- Lone Star File #G774230g45W <14:45:00, 03-08-94>


Sorry `bout that...

William M. Lydick
lydick@*****.cns.udel.edu
Message no. 2
From: Ed Matuskey <MATUSKEY@***.EDU>
Subject: Whoops....
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 22:36:13 -0800
"You're wierd Colin" was SUPPOSED to come from Heather.....
Sigh...I guess Highlander is REALLY wierd!
-Ed
Message no. 3
From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Whoops
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:32:58 -0700
Okay, so this was sent to me direct, but I think it deserves airing in the
open:

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Brian Rogers wrote:

>
> Your "To" line should read:
>
> ***** PRIVATE: Azrael
>
> Doing this will bring you in line with the rules handed down in
> the FAQ. If you need another copy of the FAQ to be mailed to you, let
> me know, and I will see that you get one.
>
> Brian "Acting nice guy cause the nice guy is on vacation" Rogers
> Dread "nice guy, damn this hurt" Executor of Shadowtk(tm, sm, m.o.u.s.e)
>
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:18:01 -0700
> From: Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
> To: SHADOWTK@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Not: British Terrorism
>
> *****TO: Azrael
> >>>>>[This "real woman" of the matrix happens to have better
things to do
> with her time than play with your little "wet dream" fantasy frame.

--Snip--

> ------- End of Forwarded Message

Back when I joined the list--before the "Encryption Wars" that brought
about the demand that people use the "*****PRIVATE:" header rather than
spend half the message describing how they were encrypting and rerouting
their messages--I thought I remembered seeing the "*****TO:" header which
had a clear usage. It was for messages over the Shadowland board that
were directed to a specific person, but not protected. Basically like a
simple e-mail message of today that, if someone wanted to go to some
effort, could relatively easily be looked into by other people, but wasn't
sent to them. How else did the rather confusing "*****NOT TO:" header
come about, might I ask? I thought it was in the FAQ, but looking through
the logs, I guess I was wrong. And it seems (althogh I didn't want to do
an exhaustive search, that I was the only one doing the *****TO:
headers...but this is the first time somebody called me on it.

Since Vernier was replying to an open message, but wanted to belittle
Azrael personally rather than air dirty laundry in public, as well as keep
the "secret" rather than spoil it for the other members of Shadowland that
hadn't visited his site, it made sense to send it to him, but there was
nothing so secretive in there that she felt that it needed encryption.
This is unlike, say, private mail to Lynch, who, given the number of
enemies the man has, is probably not the person to be openly sending very
personal messages to. Vernier, if anything, usually has a good sense of
self-preservation.

Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Should I be a good lad and use
*****PRIVATE: even if I don't figure any encryption is involved, or
should we also have an available *****TO: header?

--My two yen

Jeff


P.S. If anybody was curious what the hell Mark and I were talking about,
blame our memory. In looking throught the logs to back up my claim, I
came across this which is where it comes from:

>>>>>[Hell with the native language support. It's not how hot the
hardware,
but how you handle it. >} Speaking of which, all you hot-and-heavy deckers
should come on by and say hi to with Jabberwock2.0a. She's _really_ friendly
as daemons go *smirk*. I'm sure noone will have any complaints about going
"hot" with her...if you're good enough. Consider it a personal invitation
to <<ENCRYPTED>>. ]<<<<<
-- Azrael <12:44:58 / 10-16-57>

Which was followed later by:


*****To: Azrael
>>>>>[Sukebe.... (do look that one up)

Kudo's on the Lewis Carol motif, but that's not any interpretation of the
story that I know.... And if anything, she sure didn't "burble as she
came." -_^ God, I don't believe I just said that. Anyway, not my type, too
aggressive, and the tail was a tad too long (could get mighty
uncomfortable if anything). Brings "sleaze" to an all new...low.

So, what about the ladies--not as adventurous as I--who try the site?
Check out the icon file I left behind: JabberBoy2.1b, a little something
I cooked up and tossed in on a return trip (think that funky ancient
rocker David Bowie crossed with the archangel named "Light-bringer" and
your almost there). Don't worry I didn't bother messing with anything
else; nothing was as amusing as the login.

And I handle my hardware just fine thank you. :P ]<<<<<
-- Vernier <16:49:34/10-16-57>
Message no. 4
From: "Mark A. Imbriaco" <mark@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Whoops
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:37:03 -0400
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Jeffrey Mach wrote:

> Back when I joined the list--before the "Encryption Wars" that brought
> about the demand that people use the "*****PRIVATE:" header rather than
> spend half the message describing how they were encrypting and rerouting
> their messages--I thought I remembered seeing the "*****TO:" header which

There were lots of different unsanctioned headers before
***** PRIVATE and ***** NOT-TO were created. Currently, there
are only _three_ valid headers: PRIVATE, NOT-TO, and INTERNAL.
INTERNAL could be used for a directed message. I don't think
we need yet another header for it .. the whole point was to
increase consistency.

> Since Vernier was replying to an open message, but wanted to belittle
> Azrael personally rather than air dirty laundry in public, as well as keep
> the "secret" rather than spoil it for the other members of Shadowland that
> hadn't visited his site, it made sense to send it to him, but there was
> nothing so secretive in there that she felt that it needed encryption.
> This is unlike, say, private mail to Lynch, who, given the number of
> enemies the man has, is probably not the person to be openly sending very
> personal messages to. Vernier, if anything, usually has a good sense of
> self-preservation.
>
> Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Should I be a good lad and use
> *****PRIVATE: even if I don't figure any encryption is involved, or
> should we also have an available *****TO: header?

Use INTERNAL. For an example of what I'm getting at, just
look at one of the reams of SIGAnet messages that have been
sent by Paul Adam and I.

-Mark
Message no. 5
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Whoops
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 04:19:53 +0100
In article <Pine.HPP.3.95.970925163634.29659A-
100000@****.ugcs.caltech.edu>, Jeffrey Mach <mach@****.CALTECH.EDU>
waffled & burbled about Whoops
>Okay, so this was sent to me direct, but I think it deserves airing in the
>open:
>
From the present version of the FAQ

ii. ***** NOT TO: messages
The second type of encryption is the "Barring" message. Following the
keywords "NOT TO" the names of the characters that the writer does not
want to receive the message are listed. Once again, it is very poor
etiquette to have a character respond to a message he has been barred
from. For example,

***** NOT TO: Thunda
>>>>>[This guy is really beginning to annoy me.]<<<<<
-- Easy <00:31:16/07-07-58>

It is not impossible that a well-supported character, with a web of
contacts, would still be able see the NOT TO: message. It is, though, a
plot device intended to ease the flow of the plot (rather than a
credible technical invention) and ignoring it is likely to cause
annoyance: best to discuss it (either privately or on Plot-D) first.

Some list members find NOT TO: useful, others dislike it and choose not
to use it. As with PRIVATE: encryptions, the originator's word is final.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the only present encryption utilising a resemblance to "TO:"

Now, that's not to say it didn't or doesn't exist. I seem to recall
that To was used quite a while back to denote a post to someone that
didn't involve any kind of encryption (unlike PRIVATE:) but was
nevertheless a post directed specifically at a single person, in much
the same way as modern day e-mail either goes to a group (listserve) or
privately, modern e-mail has for forms of encryption

Public, (anyone can read it)
Restricted, (only people with access to the directory/mailer/machine)
Private (only the individual user coded via password to the mailer
software.)
and
Encrypted. (requiring decryption key)

I'm not sure

At the present though, the only encryptions I'm aware of being used on
the Shadowtk list are:

Private:
Internal:
Not To:


Hope that helps a bit. :)

--
__ \ | \ __
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A Dark Shadow in a Dark World |___/
http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk - Shadowtk Newbies Guide & Edgerunners Datastore
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 6
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@**********.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: Whoops
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 20:41:36 +0000
On 25 Sep 97 at 23:37, Mark A. Imbriaco wrote:
> > Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Should I be a good lad and use
> > *****PRIVATE: even if I don't figure any encryption is involved, or
> > should we also have an available *****TO: header?
>
> Use INTERNAL. For an example of what I'm getting at, just
> look at one of the reams of SIGAnet messages that have been
> sent by Paul Adam and I.

The FAQ states:
INTERNAL messages are for plot development, conveying information that
would not normally be posted to the ShadowLand board. They are typically
corporate or government message traffic, but that's not a hard-and-fast
rule.

So I assumed *****INTERNAL means the messages thus tagged are all
within one computer system (like the SIGA net/computer system), but as
soon as a note leaves a seperate system, it had to be tagged otherwise.
From the FAQ, I also thought there was no way information could be
shared that couldn't be posted to the virtual Shadowland node(s).

Sascha
--
+---___---------+----------------------------------------+--------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | *BLAM!* *BLAM!* |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de| 'Stop!' *BLAM!* |
| \___ __/ | | 'Police!' *BLAM!* |
|==== \_/ ======| *Wearing hats is just a way of life* | -- Officer Axly |
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| - Me |Phoenix Command SACS|
+------------- http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/~jhary -----------------+

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Whoops, 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!