|
Amateur Radio Legal Issues List
Fellow Amateur Radio Operators,
I have created a new list that deals specifically with legal issues pertaining to our hobby, the Amateur Radio Legal Issues List. The list is for the dissemination and discussion of legal issues (such as PRB-1 and pending legislation in Congress) and other related issues (court battles, etc.) that can affect our hobby. If you are interested in such a list, please send a blank email to . 73's, Paul Gray, N0JAA Moderator, Amateur Radio Legal Issues List "We have captured lightning and used it to teach sand how to think." |
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
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. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
|
|
However, I wouldn't have seen that post, since I don't subscribe to
every single radio group. jeff Oh, I see. If someone has anything remotely amateur radio related, they should post it on every amateur radio newsgroup so everyone sees it? That's just silly. rec.radio.amateur is for general amateur radio related issues. The mere fact that I'm replying to this (and that I replied to the original post) makes me just as guilty as the original spammer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
However, I wouldn't have seen that post, since I don't subscribe to
every single radio group. jeff Oh, I see. If someone has anything remotely amateur radio related, they should post it on every amateur radio newsgroup so everyone sees it? That's just silly. rec.radio.amateur is for general amateur radio related issues. The mere fact that I'm replying to this (and that I replied to the original post) makes me just as guilty as the original spammer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS. The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been
posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS. The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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:
As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS. No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been. Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups individually. *Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_ _appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate. The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur. Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively common, that particular instance would have been perhaps reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted. 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. It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more correct yourself. :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:48:34 -0400, James Nipper hath writ:
Hey, how about a posting that deals with smart cops and people who try to moderate legitimate postings? Just what is your definition of spamming? As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. It wasn't cross-posted, Mr. Top Poster. It was multi-posted. Which required folks with slow dial-up lines -- that cannot read usenet on a shell account with a real newsreader -- to download the %$@#^%$ thing multiple times. 73 Jonesy W3DHJ |
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:48:34 -0400, James Nipper hath writ:
Hey, how about a posting that deals with smart cops and people who try to moderate legitimate postings? Just what is your definition of spamming? As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. It wasn't cross-posted, Mr. Top Poster. It was multi-posted. Which required folks with slow dial-up lines -- that cannot read usenet on a shell account with a real newsreader -- to download the %$@#^%$ thing multiple times. 73 Jonesy W3DHJ |
Ya got to love those net gods! Unfortunately, they aren't as perfect as the
one who makes all this possible! -- "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote: As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS. No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been. Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups individually. *Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_ _appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate. The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur. Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively common, that particular instance would have been perhaps reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted. 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. It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more correct yourself. :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Ya got to love those net gods! Unfortunately, they aren't as perfect as the
one who makes all this possible! -- "Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote: As far as I am concerned, this gentleman's posting could (should?) have been posted in each and every user group that relates in any fashion to ham radio. Cross posting and off topic posting is a violation of many an ISP's TOS. No, it was *NOT* crossposted, and it *should* have been. Instead the message was multiposted to at least 5 newsgroups individually. *Multiposting* is *never* appropriate. Crossposting _to_ _appropriate_ newsgroups is _always_ appropriate. The fact is that every post has it's place. If that were not the case, we'd eliminate every amateur radio newsgroup except for rec.radio.amateur. Some posts have many places, and that is why crossposting is a facility available on Usenet. And while abuse is relatively common, that particular instance would have been perhaps reasonable *if* it had been crossposted instead of multiposted. 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. It seems reasonable that if you are going to rant about the way someone else posts, you might want to be a little more correct yourself. :-) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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! 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? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
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! 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? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 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 |
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 I'm sorry, do I know 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 |
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 I'm sorry, do I know 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 |
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 |
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. |
"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. |
"Spamhater" wrote in message ... "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. Andy the VHF boob is a idiot. After a very short while it will be obvious to anyone with any brains at all. Let him go on ...and on...and on and he will eventually prove my point. Have a nice day. Dan/W4NTI |
"Spamhater" wrote in message ... "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. Andy the VHF boob is a idiot. After a very short while it will be obvious to anyone with any brains at all. Let him go on ...and on...and on and he will eventually prove my point. Have a nice day. Dan/W4NTI |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com