In article <[log in to unmask]>,
Dan Lester  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
:On Fri, 6 Aug 1993 09:13:24 -0400 Chris Lewis said:
:>Correct.  A proper gateway from one world to another should conform to
:>one world on one side of the gate, and the other world on the other side
:>of the gate.  This is a surprise?  That's what gateways do, right?  A
:>gateway that can't guarantee that isn't a gateway and should be disconnected.
:
:  This is one person's opinion.  Period.  This continual beating of a
:deceased equine by Mr (?) Lewis is becoming REALLY boring.  And Stupid.
 
Sorry but there is one misstatement here.  That is that this is only
Chris's opinion.  Though obviously only one person stated this is a
problem in the msg to which you have referred, there are many of us out
here who are in Usenet who have the same opinion.  Chris has taken it
upon his self to quit sitting on his duff and try to change things - others
of us are so sick of trying to convince folk that the software needs
to be fixed that we don't bother any longer.  Oh, for the energy of youth.
 
 
:
:>False.  I do not expect other worlds to adapt to my expectations, or
:>rather, the standards of my world.  But where those other worlds
:>affect my world, they'd better conform to the standards of my world.
:
:   Be sure to remind the space aliens of that when they come to invade
:your world; of course you may have some problems dealing with their
:time-warp-ninth-dimensional-weapons.
 
Yup - that sure applies directly to this conversation - glad you are not
trying to change the subject or ignore the concept that a 'gateway' to
be a gateway needs to conform to both sides of the channel - it would be
sort of dumb to have a bridge between teh USA and Britian and for the
US folks to expect to drive on the right side of the road thru and out of
the tunnel while the British drove on the left (how's that for
another totally irrelevant argument?)
 
 
:
:>Correct.  The standards of my world, my side of the gateway, forbid the
:>gateway sending bounces to my world.
:
:   Well, then maybe 'your gateway' needs to have better defenses to
:keep out the outsiders?  Makes as much sense as any of the rest of it.
 
I don't believe that Chris has a gateway.  I believe if I understand
things that the gateway is trucking msgs back and forth between
BITNET mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups .  That part is working just
fine.  It's the LISTSERV software which is harassing innocent readers
in private email, is it not?
 
I seem to remember being harassed by some members of a BITNET mailing list
when my stupid Unix vacation msg program sent canned msgs back to the
mailing list.  I was removed from the mailing list with almost
threatening email msgs sent to my administrator over the occurance.
Seems rather unfair that "LISTSERV is allowed to harass folks who don't
want these canned mail msgs" but "users whose systems innocently respond with
canned msgs must be banned".
 
Oh well, such is life.
 
:
:>the USENET side of the gateway.  That means that bounces to USENET
:>articles should be prohibited.  I don't care how you do it - I've
:>merely made several suggestions on how you accomplish that.  If you
:
:   Once again, the answer has been given.  Why not give up and shut up?
 
Well, that certainly is a technical solution isn't it - just shut up
- don't try to express the fact that the current state of affairs is
not one which is acceptable...
 
 
--
:s
:s Larry W. Virden                 INET: [log in to unmask]
:s Personal: 674 Falls Place,   Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614