[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Majordomo 'who' command

Joe and all,

  Well Joe, you are of course entitled to your opinion.  Others may or
may not agree with it.  Several so far do, and several so far do not.
The problem here is that disregarding well documented "Best Practice"
to which the IETF and some on this list have subscribed to publicly
cannot in good faith be applied inconsistently, and has been suggested
with keeping the Majordomo 'Who' command.  Hence I suggested,
that doing so is problematic and circumventable.  This has been
demonstrated already.  My response below, which you take some
exception with, and within your right to do so I find disruptive as well.
But I would not suggest you be denied to express it publicly as you did.

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes:
>  > Bret and all,
>  >
>  >   I completely agree with Brett here.  Although there are ways around this
>  > disabling, it is not a "Best Practice" in which to operate the Majordomo
>  > command functions.  Should the DNSO List admin. Fail to restore the
>  > 'Who' command, I may find it advantageous to reveal how it can be
>  > circumvented to a number or "Interested Parties".  I would therefore
>  > suggest strongly that the Majordomo Commands, all of them be restored,
>  > is a wise and prudent thing to do.
> This is as clear an example of disruptive and anti-social behavior as I
> have ever seen, outside of the so-called joe baptista.  This kind of
> posting is exactly the reason that we need the rules that Harald
> proposed implemented ASAP.
> /Joe


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208