On 19 Jul 2003 04:18:50 GMT, pamme (VHFRadioBuff)
wrote:

I have created a new list that deals specifically with legal issues
pertaining
to our hobby

How about one dealing with SPAMMING? I think one post, on rec.radio.amateur
would have been sufficient.

Andy, you've got your Usenet panties in a bunch again. A list
pertaining to amateur radio legal issues would be helpful to the
hobby. A lot more useful than your trying to be a Usenet cop.

Bob
k5qwg


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The
point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what
the OP did.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?

Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating?

"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines."
rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines"

"signature
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"


"4.3. Usenet Signature Convention
There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the
separator line between the body and the signature of a
message."
rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter"

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places

Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs
in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that!

At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The
point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what
the OP did.

And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is

1) too long
2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between
it and the text of your message.

By what standard? Yours?

Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating?

"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines."
rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines"

"signature
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"


"4.3. Usenet Signature Convention
There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the
separator line between the body and the signature of a
message."
rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter"

Here is a more detailed explanation:

http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

VHFRadioBuff wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"

Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20
years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a
concern.

They are numbered sequentially, Andy. RFC1983 is dated August 1996. The
last one on the list, as of 201513Z July 2003, is RFC3573.

HTH
--
The appearance of my E-mail address in any venue does not in and of itself
constitute a solicitation of bulk or commercial E-mail.

I don't want unsolicited commercial E-mail.

VHFRadioBuff wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"

Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20
years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a
concern.

They are numbered sequentially, Andy. RFC1983 is dated August 1996. The
last one on the list, as of 201513Z July 2003, is RFC3573.

HTH
--
The appearance of my E-mail address in any venue does not in and of itself
constitute a solicitation of bulk or commercial E-mail.

I don't want unsolicited commercial E-mail.

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"

Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20
years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a
concern.

rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in
1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was
not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in
1983.

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

No, *YOU* can. I have a life.

That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"

Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20
years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a
concern.

rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in
1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was
not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in
1983.

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

No, *YOU* can. I have a life.

That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are?

I bet you have them printed out nice and neat in a binder next to your
enshrined C64, don't you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are?

I bet you have them printed out nice and neat in a binder next to your
enshrined C64, don't you?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT)
Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw
http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com
Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net
National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email
or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures
(over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also:
Electronic Mail, Usenet."
rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary"

Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated
after 20
years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a
concern.

rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in
1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was
not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in
1983.

You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites
which explain signatures in detail.

No, *YOU* can. I have a life.

That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He has a life???? Yea, that of acting net god..... STUFF IT NET COP.....
What you bitched about, is nothing compared to the Spam really taking place.