The initial policy of URCM says :

The moderators can be reached at
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk


Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.

Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
moderators.

 
-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

In article ,
jms   wrote:
>The moderators can be reached at
>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.

Firstly, generalities:

The moderation panel have discussed the question of spamfiltering on
the contact address, but haven't yet come to a conclusion.  Whatever
that conclusion is, I will implement it.  

My personal view is that it would be best to have a heavily
spamfiltered address which is read by the whole moderation panel, and
a separate unfiltered contact address (read by one of the moderators)
for people having trouble with getting email through.  But I'm only
one of eleven.


Secondly, dealing with the specific question of Microsoft's hotmail 
and live.co.uk systems:

At the moment, those systems don't accept email from chiark.  So if
the moderators did receive such messages at least some of them
wouldn't be able to reply.  (Last time I tried to reply to a mail sent
by Judith to my postmaster address, I also tried to send it from my
employers' systems but that appears to have vanished without trace.)

chiark's spamfiltering includes sender address verification, which
means refusing to accept emails where the sending site would itself
reject emails in the other direction.  So currently hotmail and
live.co.uk users cannot email spamfiltered addresses on chiark.

So if the moderators agree with me and choose to have the moderator
contact address spamfiltered the answer is `no, until Microsoft fix
their system, you will have to email another address which we will
provide for the purpose, and your message will then be forwarded to
the whole moderation panel'.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 03 Aug 2009 17:21:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>So if the moderators agree with me and choose to have the moderator
>contact address spamfiltered the answer is `no, until Microsoft fix
>their system, you will have to email another address which we will
>provide for the purpose, and your message will then be forwarded to
>the whole moderation panel'

Which is what we in the byte-wrangling business call a workaround.  I
have had trouble sending to Microsoft's email systems in the past for
the same reason, and if you think that's bad you should try using
Microsoft Exchange Hosted Services, an outsourced spam filter which
has no whitelist facility.  If you have a client whose messages are
persistently intercepted, for example because they are a bank and the
anti-phishing BLEAN is turned up too high, all you can do is keep
sending them to the false positive address and hope that one day they
will fix the problem.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On 03 Aug 2009 17:21:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>jms   wrote:
>>The moderators can be reached at
>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk



<snip absolutely pathetic response which means NO   the proposed
system will NOT work>




You are clearly  not fit to be a moderator  - however you will no
doubt perform the role of censor admirably.

I would urge people to vote against Ian Jackson being a moderator of
the proposed group.

It would appear that those in authority previously found him to be
unsuitable to be a vote-taker.

You must now show you non-acceptance  of him as moderator (in chief)
by voting against the formation of the group.

He knew this was an issue - but his arrogance shows no bounds as he
just tried to disregard the concerns of various people.

Pathetic.

 
-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:55:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On 03 Aug 2009 17:21:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>So if the moderators agree with me and choose to have the moderator
>>contact address spamfiltered the answer is `no, until Microsoft fix
>>their system, you will have to email another address which we will
>>provide for the purpose, and your message will then be forwarded to
>>the whole moderation panel'
>

<snip Chapman's crap>


Don't try and cloud the issue Chapman.

He knew that his system did NOT interface correctly to MS systems ten
years ago.

There are many people who use hotmail and live email addresses in urc.

Jackson has chosen that the moderators will not hear those people.

The only reason it does not work is because  he has chosen not to make
it work.

Do any of the other moderation systems have this problem?

To suggest that if I have trouble emailing the moderators - and the
email  fails - I should contact Microsoft and ask them to change their
system so that it will interface to chiark is arrogant in the extreme.

It was not just I who raised this as a problem.

He chose to ignore the views of other people - just like he did  ten
years ago when he knew it was broken then.

He was sacked as a vote-taker.

He is not worthy of being a moderator.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:54:07 +0100, jms  wrote:

> On 03 Aug 2009 17:21:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> jms   wrote:
>>> The moderators can be reached at
>>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>
>
>
> <snip absolutely pathetic response which means NO   the proposed
> system will NOT work>

As you are opposed to the proposed group, why does that claim bother you?

> You are clearly  not fit to be a moderator  - however you will no
> doubt perform the role of censor admirably.
>
> I would urge people to vote against Ian Jackson being a moderator of
> the proposed group.
>
> It would appear that those in authority previously found him to be
> unsuitable to be a vote-taker.
>
> You must now show you non-acceptance  of him as moderator (in chief)
> by voting against the formation of the group.
>
> He knew this was an issue - but his arrogance shows no bounds as he
> just tried to disregard the concerns of various people.
>
> Pathetic.

Relax, it will all be over soon.

Tony

On 2009-08-03, Wm... wrote:

> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:02:39  
> uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>
>>
>>The initial policy of URCM says :
>>
>>The moderators can be reached at
>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>>
>>Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>>when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.
>>
>>Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
>>difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
>>moderators.
>
> I think the jms thing has a valid question that should be answered.

I think Ian has already explained that Microsoft is causing the
problem.

In uk.rec.cycling Ian Jackson twisted the electrons to say:
> chiark's spamfiltering includes sender address verification, which
> means refusing to accept emails where the sending site would itself
> reject emails in the other direction.  So currently hotmail and
> live.co.uk users cannot email spamfiltered addresses on chiark.

Ah!  So you don't subscribe to the theory that if the rest of the world
has agreed to do something one way, but Microsoft does it another way
then it's the rest of the world that's wrong?  :-)

Some people might regard this as a strange concept, but I do recall
conversing with someone once whose position could best be summed up as "I
don't care what the RFC says, if it doesn't work with a Microsoft product
then obviously Microsoft is in the right"!
-- 
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Wm..."  considered Mon, 3 Aug
2009 15:24:00 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:02:39  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>
>>
>>The initial policy of URCM says :
>>
>>The moderators can be reached at
>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>>
>>Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>>when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.
>>
>>Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
>>difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
>>moderators.
>
>I think the jms thing has a valid question that should be answered.
>
>I won't be affected and have already voted YES

I don't think it's unreasonable to require mail to be formatted
correctly through servers that comply with the relevant rfcs.

The question is, how badly broken does it have to be before you ignore
it?

The old adage "be selective in what you send, but generous in what you
accept" was written long before spam/uce was a serious problem, and to
a large extent ANY anti spam measure necessarily disregards this
advice.
Running urcm through a system that's drowning in spam won't help
anyone.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:02:54 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

> On 2009-08-03, Wm... wrote:
>
>> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:02:39  
>> uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The initial policy of URCM says :
>>>
>>> The moderators can be reached at
>>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>> Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>>> when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.
>>>
>>> Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
>>> difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
>>> moderators.
>>
>> I think the jms thing has a valid question that should be answered.
>
> I think Ian has already explained that Microsoft is causing the
> problem.

Quite.

But also the requested discussion was closed and summarised by the CFV.

Maybe the jms person will care to chance its luck with an RFD of its own.

Tony

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:11:14 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>Maybe the jms person will care to chance its luck with an RFD of its own.

Name change from uk.rec.cycling to uk.rec.cyclists.hate.hate.hate?
Should be a shoo-in once the new group is created :-)

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:58:13 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

<snip>


>Running urcm through a system that's drowning in spam won't help
>anyone.


ffs

No-one is suggesting that that is what will happen.

Just how many other systems do you know of which won't accept email
from hotmail and live accounts?

I can honestly say I have never ever hit one - have you?

All of my spam is filtered out.

Out  of the last 151 messages I have received - none, I repeat none,
was sent from a hotmail or live account

It  is absolutely nothing to with spam.

It is because he is too pig-headed and arrogant.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:02:54 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>On 2009-08-03, Wm... wrote:
>
>> Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:02:39  
>> uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The initial policy of URCM says :
>>>
>>>The moderators can be reached at
>>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>>>when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.
>>>
>>>Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
>>>difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
>>>moderators.
>>
>> I think the jms thing has a valid question that should be answered.
>
>I think Ian has already explained that Microsoft is causing the
>problem.


Which is of course absolute bollocks.

Have a look at the post from Wood hall elsewhere:

>I've just seen what is wrong. Boy, your mailserver is anal. Forget it -
>I'm just not prepared to try and defeat it. (Up until a few weeks ago
>this would have worked. But i'm in the process of changing ISPs and IPs
>on some servers and some changes are still in flux. Your's is the _ONLY_
>server that has refused mail during this process - that's 15-20k emails
>per day)

Get that - one system has refused email from 15 to 20 thousand per
day.

Whose is that one system?

Ian Jackson's.

The one which will be used for the moderation system.





-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:20:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:11:14 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
> wrote:
>
>>Maybe the jms person will care to chance its luck with an RFD of its own.
>
>Name change from uk.rec.cycling to uk.rec.cyclists.hate.hate.hate?
>Should be a shoo-in once the new group is created :-)
>
>Guy


Good old Chapman - keep things on the boil.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:01:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:54:07 +0100, jms  wrote:
>
>> On 03 Aug 2009 17:21:47 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> jms   wrote:
>>>> The moderators can be reached at
>>>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip absolutely pathetic response which means NO   the proposed
>> system will NOT work>
>
>As you are opposed to the proposed group, why does that claim bother you?


If the group is to be created - it should at least work as stated.

Jackson has stated that the moderators can be emailed at a particular
email address.

That is just not true for all posters.

He was told of this problem.

He refused to mend his software.

He is arrogant and pig-headed as his actions which caused  him to be
sacked as a vote taker showed.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

In article , moderation2009
@live.co.uk says...


> He was told of this problem.
> 
> He refused to mend his software.
> 

What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?



-- 
Alan LeHun

In article , moderation2009
@live.co.uk says...
> Get that - one system has refused email from 15 to 20 thousand per
> day.
> 
> Whose is that one system?
> 
> Ian Jackson's.
> 

Most sysops these days ignore RFC convention and silently drop emails 
that are "unwanted". Again, it appears you want to criticise Ian for 
having a compliant system.

I wonder how many of Mr Halls emails actually reach someone's inbox. I 
can't imagine there would be many companies sending out 15-20k solicited 
emails per day.



fwiw, I think you may have a valid point, however you won't get it 
across by insisting that Ian is at fault for having a working server.


-- 
Alan LeHun

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:23:33 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>In article , moderation2009
>@live.co.uk says...
>
>
>> He was told of this problem.
>> 
>> He refused to mend his software.
>> 
>
>What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?


Not biting - thanks.

If he runs a system which will not accept emails from  "hotmail" or
"live" accounts then as far as I am concerned  it is broken.

He has purposely made a decision that he will not alter his software
to make it work.

He is arrogant and pig-headed and not in the real world in 2009.

(I am sure you will now explain that the "problem" is not his "fault")

Did you see the gem from Woodhall earlier:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've just seen what is wrong. Boy, your mailserver is anal. Forget it 
I'm just not prepared to try and defeat it. (Up until a few weeks ago
this would have worked. But i'm in the process of changing ISPs and
IPs on some servers and some changes are still in flux. Your's is the
_ONLY_ server that has refused mail during this process - that's
15-20k emails per day)
=========================================================


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:50:33 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:23:33 +0100, Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>In article , moderation2009
>>@live.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>>> He was told of this problem.
>>> 
>>> He refused to mend his software.
>>> 
>>
>>What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?
>
>RFC1122, paragraph 1.1.2.
>
>Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
>hamrful by a large number of people and is almost certainly the reason
>why his system is blocked by Hotmail/Live.com as, to them, it appears
>to be just another dictionary attack.
>
>For avoidance of doubt, I don't think this constitutes any reason
>whatsoever to vote against the creation of the group, since Ian has
>already stated that the moderation system will not be behind the
>barrier formed by this software and, in any case, the choice of
>moderation system is the ultimate responsibility of the moderators as
>a whole rather than the proponent.
>
>Mark


When I originally raised this issue - he immediately said that it was
the fault of my system that my email did not get through.

He however knew that there was a problem with his system - and he has
been aware of it for years.

He refused to alter it and has continued to say that it is not his
system at fault.

He continues to make the false statement that the moderators can be
contacted on a particular address.

It is fundamentally wrong that not everyone can contact the moderators
at the supplied address.

By this action he has shown that he is deceitful, dishonest and not
fit to be a moderator - never mind about the lead moderator.

He has said that the only way to object to a moderator is to vote
against  the formation of the group.

I therefore urge everyone who is unhappy with his attitude and actions
and who thinks he is unfit to be a moderator to vote NO to the
formation of the group.

There can then be a rerun of the vote for the moderated system - and a
separate ballot for moderators.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:04:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:50:33 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
>>hamrful 
>
>"Considered harmful" is considered harmful.
>
>Guy

He knows it is a problem - he refuses to fix it.

If one  sends an email to any of your addresses - including your place
of work  - from hotmail or live - do they discard it as spam?

Have you ever come across reputable organisations who discard emails
from hotmail and live as spam as a matter of course.

How much spam do you get caught which comes from  hotmail or live
accounts?

He is arrogant and dishonest - as his little spell as a vote taker
until he got the sack has shown.

He  is not fit to be a moderator.

 

-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:23:33 +0100, Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article , moderation2009
>@live.co.uk says...
>
>
>> He was told of this problem.
>> 
>> He refused to mend his software.
>> 
>
>What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?

RFC1122, paragraph 1.1.2.

Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
hamrful by a large number of people and is almost certainly the reason
why his system is blocked by Hotmail/Live.com as, to them, it appears
to be just another dictionary attack.

For avoidance of doubt, I don't think this constitutes any reason
whatsoever to vote against the creation of the group, since Ian has
already stated that the moderation system will not be behind the
barrier formed by this software and, in any case, the choice of
moderation system is the ultimate responsibility of the moderators as
a whole rather than the proponent.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In article , 
usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
> RFC1122, paragraph 1.1.2.
> 
> Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
> hamrful by a large number of people and is almost certainly the reason
> why his system is blocked by Hotmail/Live.com as, to them, it appears
> to be just another dictionary attack.
> 


fairy. That clears that up.

Now that you mention it, I think clara.net tried that for a while as 
well.

-- 
Alan LeHun

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:50:33 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
>hamrful 

"Considered harmful" is considered harmful.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

In article , moderation2009
@live.co.uk says...
> >What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?
> 
> 
> Not biting - thanks.

It was a serious question.


> If he runs a system which will not accept emails from  "hotmail" or
> "live" accounts then as far as I am concerned  it is broken.

I don't subscribe to this philosophy. Blame should always be placed 
where it is deserved. In this case, I have to agree with you though. It 
is not MS that is at fault here

> 
> He has purposely made a decision that he will not alter his software
> to make it work.
> 
> He is arrogant and pig-headed and not in the real world in 2009.
> 
> (I am sure you will now explain that the "problem" is not his "fault")

Fortunately, Mark took my question seriously and provided an answer. 
There are many who frequent unn* who are seriously clued in such matters

> 
> Did you see the gem from Woodhall earlier:
> 

Yes. Still don't know what he does that he sends 15-20k emails a day, 
but I am not so seriously clued. Maybe that's quite common.

-- 
Alan LeHun

In MsgID on Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:24:00 +0100,
in uk.net.news.config, 'Wm...' wrote:

>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:02:39  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>
>>
>>The initial policy of URCM says :
>>
>>The moderators can be reached at
>>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>>
>>
>>Will this address accept emails and deliver them to the moderators
>>when those emails originate from "hotmail"  and  "live" accounts.
>>
>>Are there any types  of account from where you envisage people having
>>difficulty with emails to that address being delivered to the
>>moderators.
>
>I think the jms thing has a valid question that should be answered.
>
>I won't be affected and have already voted YES

I've not long done some historical readings in uk.r.c and am about to join
you. (Assuming I actually remember to bother going through the process
'tomorrow' 'morning')

Having met it here I admittedly already approaching the waver line, but
having seen the way jms is incapable of accepting logic and reason (it's
not that it perpetually sticks to points that have a minute chance of
being right, it's the way it blatantly ignores explanations that
definitively prove it is mistaken) I'm now in enough sympathy with a
group-creation reason that wouldn't usually receive a moment's
consideration. 

Seriously - I know I can look like I have no such thing, but it actually
takes quite something to shake my principles. S/He/IT has successfully
done so.

Dave J.

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:40:27 +0100,
    Alan LeHun  wrote:

> Yes. Still don't know what he does that he sends 15-20k emails a day, 
> but I am not so seriously clued. Maybe that's quite common.
>
I don't send that number of emails. If I send 5 per day then that's a
lot (and I deliver direct to MX - if people don't want my emails then
that's fine)

But that mailserver acts as a smarthost for some businesses who were
having problems with their ISPs smarthost (you know the sort of thing,
attempt to send someone an email, ISPs smarthost accepts it and then it
disappears into a black hole. Once this is noticed, send it again and it
works perfectly.)

There's maybe 500 or so people in total sending emails. (And I realise
my quick count was double counting, it's about half that number of
emails actually)

Over the next few weeks I expect the setup will stablize to the point
where chiark would start accepting email again. But I had to make some
drastic changes at short notice and so things aren't quite the way I'd
like them to be yet. (Actually the DNS "problems" are minor compared to
some of the rather bizarre routing I've got inside and on the firewall
at the moment but it's slow business unpicking things while making sure
everything continues to work correctly)

Tim.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/

jms wrote:

> If he runs a system which will not accept emails from  "hotmail" or
> "live" accounts then as far as I am concerned  it is broken.

Fortunately your opinion carries little weight, little girl.

   BugBear

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 22:23:33 +0100,
    Alan LeHun  wrote:
> In article , moderation2009
> @live.co.uk says...
>
>
>> He was told of this problem.
>> 
>> He refused to mend his software.
>> 
>
> What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?
>
It's more complicated that that.

On his personal email it is completely reasonable for him to do exactly
whatever he likes and refuse email from whoever he wants. Common decency
would ask that if he publishes MX records (which he does) then his
mailserver is "kind" in its refusals and as helpful as possible (as one
example, if he decides he's not going to accept email because he doesn't
like how the DNS of the sending server is setup then it would be nice to
say "5.x.x Refused due to DNS" rather than "5.x.x No such user"
so that the admins of the sending server don't have to waste time
working out why one of their users cannot send email to him - actually,
I predict that anyone trying to email him and managed to get someone to
look at the email logs will just have been told "the email address
you're sending to is invalid" so his crusade isn't going to fix anything
anyway.)

But once he starts accepting emails for other people and other reasons
he needs to be much more lenient in what he accepts and he certainly
should not be rejecting emails with wrong reasons in the rejection.
Using his own email address as a push to "fix" things is fine - although
I predict that most people will just not bother to email him - but
"hijacking" a "contact the moderators" email address for usenet to
achieve the same thing is unacceptable IMO.
(Greylisting is reasonable, DUL acceptable, SAV pushing it, especially
as it appears there are major ISPs who blacklist servers that do this
and basically refuse all email from them and blocking because you do not
like the reverse DNS for the server that is sending to you is
ridiculous)

(There are times when it's acceptable to break the rules - for example
for a few weeks I was getting hundreds of spam emails to postmaster each
day. I temporarily blocked that address with an error something like
"overwhelmed with spam. Please try postmaster2". Fortunately the
delivery attempts stopped after about a week of refusing them and I put
things back about a week later)

Tim.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/

On Aug 3, 10:32 pm, Alan LeHun  wrote:

> I wonder how many of Mr Halls emails actually reach someone's inbox. I
> can't imagine there would be many companies sending out 15-20k solicited
> emails per day.

When the mail infrastructure was handed to me about four years ago we
were sending about 40,000 messages per day out of two SMTP gateways.
Not sure what it's at now since I have (thankfully) largely Recovered
from being a mail sysadmin, which is one of the world's worst jobs
IMO.
--
Guy

In article ,
Tim Woodall   wrote:
>But once he starts accepting emails for other people and other reasons
>he needs to be much more lenient in what he accepts

My view is that when I deal with email for other people, I should
honour their views about filtering policy.  For that reason I have
made available to my users extensive filtering policy control
arrangements which are directly controlled by the user themselves.

And, for the same reason, the decision about spamfiltering of email to
the moderators' list is up to the moderator panel as a whole, as I
have explained several times.  The panel has discussed it but hasn't
yet come to a conclusion.

> and he certainly
>should not be rejecting emails with wrong reasons in the rejection.

Which I don't.

>Using his own email address as a push to "fix" things is fine

That's not what the point is.  The point is whether to be deluged in
spam or not.  Without effective spamfiltering the 11 moderators will
all be deluged in spam.  This is why I would like to have strong
filtering (with obviously a whitelist facility) on the primary
widely-published contact address, and a workaround for those genuine
emails which get caught by the spamfilter (so that the user can ask to
be put on the whitelist, etc.)

But as I say, that's my personal view.  The moderation panel as a
whole will decide and I will implement that decision.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Mark Goodge  writes:
> Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard and typed:

>> What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?
>
> RFC1122, paragraph 1.1.2.

"This RFC covers the communications protocol layers: link layer, IP
layer, and transport layer; its companion RFC-1123 covers the
application and support protocols."

i.e. 1122 is not relevant to SMTP at all.

> Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
> hamrful by a large number of people and is almost certainly the reason
> why his system is blocked by Hotmail/Live.com as, to them, it appears
> to be just another dictionary attack.

At a guess you mean 1123 s1.2.2, i.e. the robustness principle, which
nobody with any kind of spam filtering follows, by definition.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:38:11 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> If he runs a system which will not accept emails from  "hotmail" or
>> "live" accounts then as far as I am concerned  it is broken.
>
>Fortunately your opinion carries little weight, little girl.
>
>   BugBear


Yes of course - there is nothing wrong with Jackson's system at all.

Of course they are not broken.

I apologise for saying that they were.

I have written to Microsoft and asked them if they will change their
systems so that chiark will interface correctly with them.

Is that alright "little boy"?


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On 04 Aug 2009 12:31:08 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

<snip>


>That's not what the point is.  The point is whether to be deluged in
>spam or not.


I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.

You are living in the past.

There is no problem with spam from those addresses.

You need to enter the real world and 2009.

You say that you will let the moderators decide for themselves.

No doubt you will be as helpful and honest as you were to other people
prior to you being sacked as a vote taker.

What was that little disagreement over precisely?




-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:24:15  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>No doubt you will be as helpful and honest as you were to other people
>prior to you being sacked as a vote taker.
>
>What was that little disagreement over precisely?

I started to think about what could have made you such a nasty person 
and then stopped.  Have you voted yet?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

jms  writes:

> I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
> you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.

Yesterday SAUCE rejected 578 spams for me; of those roughly[1] 20 were
from msn, and 1 from live.com

That's for a 24-hour period.

Regards,

Matthew
 
[1] Based on a quick grep 
-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

On 04 Aug 2009 17:20:52 +0100, Matthew Vernon 
wrote:

>jms  writes:
>
>> I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
>> you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.
>
>Yesterday SAUCE rejected 578 spams for me; of those roughly[1] 20 were
>from msn, and 1 from live.com
>
>That's for a 24-hour period.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matthew
> 
>[1] Based on a quick grep 


many thanks


Out of the last 959 spam messages I got 5 were actually from hotmail
and none from live.

Given that there are in excess of 150 people in urc use hotmail
addresses - 

He has a solution for a problem which does not exist.

(Unless he is just bloody minded and arrogant of course)




-- 


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On 04 Aug 2009 17:20:52 +0100, Matthew Vernon 
wrote:

>Yesterday SAUCE rejected 578 spams for me; of those roughly[1] 20 were
>from msn, and 1 from live.com

Thigs are quiet right now, nearly 4% of mail addressed to the domains
for which I still have oversight is being delivered - that's an
improvement on the usual 0.5-1%.  There are a few still slipping by,
but the block rate is steady at just under one million spam messages
per day.

Good luck to anyone who would rather try to manage that without
filters.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:55:26 +0100, Richard Kettlewell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge  writes:
>> Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>> What is wrong with his software? What RFC does it contravene?
>>
>> RFC1122, paragraph 1.1.2.
>
>"This RFC covers the communications protocol layers: link layer, IP
>layer, and transport layer; its companion RFC-1123 covers the
>application and support protocols."
>
>i.e. 1122 is not relevant to SMTP at all.
>
>> Specifically, it uses Sender Address Verification, which is considered
>> hamrful by a large number of people and is almost certainly the reason
>> why his system is blocked by Hotmail/Live.com as, to them, it appears
>> to be just another dictionary attack.
>
>At a guess you mean 1123 s1.2.2, i.e. the robustness principle,

I do, sorry.

> which
>nobody with any kind of spam filtering follows, by definition.

Up to a point, that's true. But SAV doesn't just break the "be liberal
in what you accept" part of the robustness principle, it breaks the
"be conservative in what you send" part. Since the majority of spam is
sent from forged addresses, SAV is just another form of backscatter.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On 04 Aug 2009 17:20:52 +0100, Matthew Vernon put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>jms  writes:
>
>> I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
>> you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.
>
>Yesterday SAUCE rejected 578 spams for me; of those roughly[1] 20 were
>from msn, and 1 from live.com

Were they actually from MSN (ie, came from MSN's mail servers), or did
they merely have From addresses at those servers?

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge  writes:

> On 04 Aug 2009 17:20:52 +0100, Matthew Vernon put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
> 
> >jms  writes:
> >
> >> I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
> >> you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.
> >
> >Yesterday SAUCE rejected 578 spams for me; of those roughly[1] 20 were
> >from msn, and 1 from live.com
> 
> Were they actually from MSN (ie, came from MSN's mail servers), or did
> they merely have From addresses at those servers?

I was only counting those that came from Microsoft's servers; there
are a couple of extras "from" MSN that didn't come from there.

Matthew

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:53:25 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
 wrote:
<snip>


>If uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request@usenet.org.uk will exist then yes,
>this whole thing has been a complete red herring and I apologise to
>everyone for getting involved at all. Of course Ian is free to apply
>whatever filtering he likes to email delivered directly to the chiark
>address and whether he feels the job of his filtering is to make the
>moderators job as easy as possible or the people wanting to contact the
>moderators job as easy as possible is completely moot.
>
>Tim.


His whole attitude to this matter has demonstrated that he is not fit
to be the chief moderator of the proposed group.

Just as the same attitude previously meant that he was sacked as a
vote-taker.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Quoting  Phil W Lee  <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>:
>The old adage "be selective in what you send, but generous in what you
>accept" was written long before spam/uce was a serious problem, and to
>a large extent ANY anti spam measure necessarily disregards this
>advice.

It also depends on how you read it. The second half, I suppose, is more
encouraging systems to handle any possible input without choking - that
doesn't mean they have to *like* it.

telnetd, for example, should "accept" any possible input username and
password of any length or containing any characters, in the sense that it
should not choke. But obviously it should not "accept" in the sense of
allowing people to log in any but the correct ones.

As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to say it's
a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it never, ever leaves
the sender's mail system unaware that their email was rejected, whereas
most other approaches produce at least some completely blackholed email.
-- 
David Damerell  flcl?
Yesterday was Wednesday, July.
Today is Thursday, July.
Tomorrow will be Friday, July.

On 05 Aug 2009 18:56:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

<snip>


>As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to say it's
>a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it never, ever leaves
>the sender's mail system unaware that their email was rejected, whereas
>most other approaches produce at least some completely blackholed email.


and there was me thinking that there was no  report back to the
sender's system.

I wonder why I didn't get one?

I suppose that will be Microsoft's fault.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On 05 Aug 2009 18:56:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to say it's
>a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it never, ever leaves
>the sender's mail system unaware that their email was rejected, whereas
>most other approaches produce at least some completely blackholed email.

Yes, exactly that.  Our filters were set simply not to even try to
inform people when messages failed filtering after passing the initial
recipient name check, for the simple reason that almost all the return
addresses were bogus and the system as it was originally configured
and handed to me (which was to send notifications of rejections inside
the border) was forever being brought down by the consequences of
trying to deliver NDRs to spammers.

Of course the real solution is to have spamming declared an
international crime punishable by being weighted down and thrown  into
a vat of bovine diarrhoea, symbolic of the sea of shit in which the
internet is drowning thanks to their efforts.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

jms  wrote in
news:mamj75h7b90c66d4984fhcdcro8late7pk@4ax.com: 

> On 05 Aug 2009 18:56:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> 
><snip>
> 
> 
>>As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to
>>say it's a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it
>>never, ever leaves the sender's mail system unaware that their
>>email was rejected, whereas most other approaches produce at least
>>some completely blackholed email. 
> 
> 
> and there was me thinking that there was no  report back to the
> sender's system.
> 
> I wonder why I didn't get one?
> 
> I suppose that will be Microsoft's fault.

In this case obviously so, since we have established that Microsoft 
fails the spam test by not accepting email from chiark.  My interest 
here is that they also silently drop my email even though I don't 
send them more than one a week and have perfectly good rDNS.  Why 
not get a proper email address rather than free webmail which is 
worth only slightly more than you pay for it?   



-- 
Percy Picacity

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Wed, 05
Aug 2009 20:22:18 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>On 05 Aug 2009 18:56:25 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to say it's
>>a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it never, ever leaves
>>the sender's mail system unaware that their email was rejected, whereas
>>most other approaches produce at least some completely blackholed email.
>
>Yes, exactly that.  Our filters were set simply not to even try to
>inform people when messages failed filtering after passing the initial
>recipient name check, for the simple reason that almost all the return
>addresses were bogus and the system as it was originally configured
>and handed to me (which was to send notifications of rejections inside
>the border) was forever being brought down by the consequences of
>trying to deliver NDRs to spammers.
>
>Of course the real solution is to have spamming declared an
>international crime punishable by being weighted down and thrown  into
>a vat of bovine diarrhoea, symbolic of the sea of shit in which the
>internet is drowning thanks to their efforts.
>
You forgot to sandpaper them first.

In article ,
Mark Goodge   wrote:
>Up to a point, that's true. But SAV doesn't just break the "be liberal
>in what you accept" part of the robustness principle, it breaks the
>"be conservative in what you send" part. Since the majority of spam is
>sent from forged addresses, SAV is just another form of backscatter.
>
 SAV doesn't cause backscatter.  The verification SMTP connections
don't involve a delivery, and if a mail isn't accepted by the
SAV-using system bounces causing backscatter then that's the fault of
the system that generated the bounce (which should have been more
careful about what emails it was willing to accept for transit).

-- 
Jonathan Amery.          "Just imagine what would happen if there
   #####                  was a world shortage of semicolons."
  #######__o
  #######'/                                   - Jamie Cruise on C Programming.

In article ,
jms   wrote:
>I would be interested in your, and other's figures, for how much spam
>you actually trap from hotmail and live accounts.

 Of my last months spam 335 (approximately 1% of the total) arrived
from hotmail.  This number has remained approximately constant for the
last three years or so (although as a percentage it has reduced due to
an increased amount of spam from other sources).

 Yahoo is significantly worse -- about 6000 messages (20%), and Gmail
comes in at about 600 (2%).

-- 
Jonathan Amery.   'If we give you a pistol will you fight for the Lord?'
   #####          'But you can't kill the devil with a gun or a sword'
  #######__o      'Will you swear on the Bible?' 'I will not,' said he,
  #######'/       'For the truth is more holy than the book to me.'

In article ,
jms   wrote:
>Just how many other systems do you know of which won't accept email
>from hotmail and live accounts?
>
>I can honestly say I have never ever hit one - have you?

 Approximately 75% of mails my sister sends me from her hotmail
account never reach my gmail account.

 A similar percentage of mails the other way don't get through because
hotmail thinks gmail is a spamming site.

-- 
Jonathan Amery .oO_                                                   ________
   #####       U_| |_U  ________ ________ |======| |======| |======| | # [] # |
  #######__o  |  | |  | \      / \      / |======| |======| |======| |   []   |
  #######'/   \-OO-OO-/+-oo--oo-+-oo--oo-+-oo--oo-+-oo--oo-+-oo--oo-+\-oo--oo-/

On 07 Aug 2009 19:30:41 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Amery put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In article ,
>Mark Goodge   wrote:
>>Up to a point, that's true. But SAV doesn't just break the "be liberal
>>in what you accept" part of the robustness principle, it breaks the
>>"be conservative in what you send" part. Since the majority of spam is
>>sent from forged addresses, SAV is just another form of backscatter.
>>
> SAV doesn't cause backscatter.  The verification SMTP connections
>don't involve a delivery, and if a mail isn't accepted by the
>SAV-using system bounces causing backscatter then that's the fault of
>the system that generated the bounce (which should have been more
>careful about what emails it was willing to accept for transit).

It's not backscatter in the same sense that a bounce is, no. But it's
undesirable for the same reasons: it puts unsolicted load on innocent
mail servers. That makes it effectively the same thing.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:59:37 GMT, Charles Lindsey put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>In  Tim Woodall  writes:
>
>>which Ian followed up with with:
>>Message-ID: <PHg*n5CLs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>
>>In particular:
>>>Indeed, most of these are impossible for -requ...@usenet.org.uk.
>>>But I don't expect us to use or publish that address anywhere.
>>>
>>>There is no reason why the moderators' contact address needs to be the
>>>formulaic address <group>-requ...@usenet.org.uk (even
>>>uk.net.news.announce does not advertise an address of that form);
>>>indeed there is no reason it needs to be @usenet.org.uk.  The
>>>moderation panel hasn't decided yet what we will do but my advice is
>>>that the contact address we should publish should be an address
>>>@chiark whose spamfiltering setup we can actually control, and whose
>>>logs we can read to find out what is happening to missing messages.
>
>
>>If uk-rec-cycling-moderated-request@usenet.org.uk will exist then yes,
>>this whole thing has been a complete red herring...
>
>Wearing my Deputy Control hat, and also as keeper of www.usenet.org.uk and
>of the various forwarding addresses, I can assure you that both the
>submission and -request addresses _will_ exist in the form that I gave
>them. The submission address will certainly cause the moderators to
>receive the article with a view to publication (whether they publish it or
>not is another matter), and it would take a monumental screw up by the
>moderators to prevent the -request address from working also.

Indeed. These will be the canonical submission and request addresses,
and there is no need for the moderators to publish any other. The
actual address to which the submission and request addresses forward
to is broadly irrelevent, and may, in any case, change from time to
time as circumstances require.

There are some legacy groups, such as unna, where the canonical
addresses aren't necessarily published as the previously used
addresses have general acceptance and there's no overriding need to
change them to the canonical format. But for newly created groups,
then the canonical addresses will exist from the outset and will be
the addresses which are published on www.usenet.org.uk.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

In uk.net.news.config on 07 Aug 2009 20:13:26 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
Amery  wrote:

> In article ,
> jms   wrote:
>>Just how many other systems do you know of which won't accept email
>>from hotmail and live accounts?
>>
>>I can honestly say I have never ever hit one - have you?
>
>  Approximately 75% of mails my sister sends me from her hotmail
> account never reach my gmail account.

Do they literally not arrive, or does GMail consign them to its spam
"folder"?

>  A similar percentage of mails the other way don't get through because
> hotmail thinks gmail is a spamming site.

Well, quite a lot of spam comes from there.

However, jms isn't really interested in serious answers to the
questions she asks. She merely hopes to discredit
chiark.greenend.org.uk by spreading FUD. I've voted against the URCM
proposal for reasons I've expressed elsewhere, and I'll be pleased if
my arguments persuade other people to vote the way I voted, but it's
quite annoying to have LOONIES agreeing with me. When considering how
to vote, nothing written by jms should be taken seriously, IMO.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Peter J Ross wrote:
  I've voted against the URCM
> proposal for reasons I've expressed elsewhere, and I'll be pleased if
> my arguments persuade other people to vote the way I voted, but it's
> quite annoying to have LOONIES agreeing with me.
I felt the same way when the BNF (or NF or whatever they pretend they 
care called this month) arrived at the proposition that MP's should 
share a "section house" and hotdesk, which I thought was my idea.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:49:24 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on 07 Aug 2009 20:13:26 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
>Amery  wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> jms   wrote:
>>>Just how many other systems do you know of which won't accept email
>>>from hotmail and live accounts?
>>>
>>>I can honestly say I have never ever hit one - have you?
>>
>>  Approximately 75% of mails my sister sends me from her hotmail
>> account never reach my gmail account.
>
>Do they literally not arrive, or does GMail consign them to its spam
>"folder"?
>
>>  A similar percentage of mails the other way don't get through because
>> hotmail thinks gmail is a spamming site.
>
>Well, quite a lot of spam comes from there.
>
>However, jms isn't really interested in serious answers to the
>questions she asks. She merely hopes to discredit
>chiark.greenend.org.uk by spreading FUD.

Many thanks for the in depth analysis of my motives.  Did you have
special training or did it come naturally to you  - just like being a
fuckwit?

Having an address for the moderators which consigns email from hotmail
and live accounts - to name just two - to the bin - is unacceptable.

Jackson is too pigheaded to do anything about it.

However, I think I may still vote for the group - although I have
already voted -   it looks like win win for me.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

In message , jms 
 writes

>Having an address for the moderators which consigns email from hotmail
>and live accounts - to name just two - to the bin - is unacceptable.

If a list of compliant, non-ISP, systems is regularly posted to the 
group I can't see any problem with it.

To silently drop contributions without *any* recourse would be wrong; 
but where the user *has* the opportunity to fix their posting problem?

?
-- 
Rex M F Smith

Rex M F Smith  wrote in
news:LDjx4aEJDgfKFwKT@gehena.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , jms 
> writes
> 
>>Having an address for the moderators which consigns email from
>>hotmail and live accounts - to name just two - to the bin - is
>>unacceptable. 
> 
> If a list of compliant, non-ISP, systems is regularly posted to
> the group I can't see any problem with it.
> 
> To silently drop contributions without *any* recourse would be
> wrong; but where the user *has* the opportunity to fix their
> posting problem? 

As has been discussed, there is no question of posted contributions 
being dropped:  they are forwarded from another system.  It is emails 
*to* the moderators, which most normal people will never want to send, 
which might be affected.


-- 
Percy Picacity

Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:57:14  
uk.net.news.config Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>As has been discussed, there is no question of posted contributions
>being dropped:  they are forwarded from another system.  It is emails
>*to* the moderators, which most normal people will never want to send,
>which might be affected.

Unless you are jms (clearly not normal) in which case you want to be 
able to send e-mails to the moderators of a group you don't subscribe to 
and didn't vote for.

I think I have that right :)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 13:49:12 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:57:14  
>uk.net.news.config Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>
>
>>As has been discussed, there is no question of posted contributions
>>being dropped:  they are forwarded from another system.  It is emails
>>*to* the moderators, which most normal people will never want to send,
>>which might be affected.
>
>Unless you are jms (clearly not normal) in which case you want to be 
>able to send e-mails to the moderators of a group you don't subscribe to 
>and didn't vote for.
>
>I think I have that right :)


I think that you area fuckwit.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 23:48:41 +0100, Rex M F Smith
 wrote:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>
>>Having an address for the moderators which consigns email from hotmail
>>and live accounts - to name just two - to the bin - is unacceptable.
>
>If a list of compliant, non-ISP, systems is regularly posted to the 
>group I can't see any problem with it.
>
>To silently drop contributions without *any* recourse would be wrong; 
>but where the user *has* the opportunity to fix their posting problem?
>
>?


In this day and age why should someone *not* be able to post a basic
email from a hotmail or live account - just because the owner of the
receiving  system is too pig-headed.

Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
this way?

No - because any reputable body/person would damn soon correct the
problem.

He knows why his system does not interface correctly to the MS ones -
he refuses to change it through some misguided reasoning.

You can guarantee that he will bully his little band of helpers in to
accepting his unreasonable stance.

The fact that they appear to be spineless will of course help.

He rightly was previously sacked as a vote-taker over this same issue
and his whole attitude to it.

The sender is NOT informed that the email has been dropped.

The fact that he refers to the problem as being one for M$ sums up his
childish behaviour  in a nutshell.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

jms wrote:

> 
> 
> I think that you area fuckwit.
> 
> 

Yeah he's a real square, that man.

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:03:12  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>I think that you area fuckwit.

Don't think my voice is that good.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Aug 5, 8:22 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2009 18:56:25 퍝 (BST), David Damerell
>
>  wrote:
> >As a user of both Ian's anti-spam approach and others, I have to say it's
> >a toss-up. Ian's produces more false positives _but_ it never, ever leaves
> >the sender's mail system unaware that their email was rejected, whereas
> >most other approaches produce at least some completely blackholed email.
>
> Yes, exactly that.  Our filters were set simply not to even try to
> inform people when messages failed filtering after passing the initial
> recipient name check, for the simple reason that almost all the return
> addresses were bogus and the system as it was originally configured
> and handed to me (which was to send notifications of rejections inside
> the border) was forever being brought down by the consequences of
> trying to deliver NDRs to spammers.
>
> Of course the real solution is to have spamming declared an
> international crime punishable by being weighted down and thrown  into
> a vat of bovine diarrhoea, symbolic of the sea of shit in which the
> internet is drowning thanks to their efforts.
>
> Guy
> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc|http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
> "Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
>  - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

Was that a real post by Chapman, or a forgery?  It's getting quite
hard to tell these days.  Every time I see a post from "Chapman", I'm
thinking "Is that really Chapman or yet another forgery?"  It must be
very frustrating for him knowing that that same question will be going
through so many people's minds whenever they read a post of his.
People no longer have the confidence that a post purporting to come
from "Just zis Guy, you know?" really is from Chapman, now that there
have been *so many* forgeries (a ridiculous number).  It's dreadful,
and no wonder that Chapman has considered taking drastic action to
combat it.

On Aug 4, 2:51 am, Dave J.  wrote:
> it's the way it blatantly ignores explanations that
> definitively prove it is mistaken)

Where?  Seriously, I don't recall Judith doing this.  Now Chapman (and
others): that's a different matter.  He simply refuses to answer
certain questions (where he doesn't want to admit the truth, but he
doesn't want to lie either, because he's worried his fairy-tale God
will strike him down).  When has Judith done that?

And do you think referring to people as "it" is particularly helpful?
However much you may dislike someone, they're still of definite gender.

In message , Wm...
 writes

>Unless you are jms (clearly not normal) in which case you want to be
>able to send e-mails to the moderators of a group you don't subscribe
>to and didn't vote for.

>I think I have that right :)
        Follows my mental summary, yes :-)
-- 
Rex M F Smith

In message , jms
 writes

>Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
>this way?
        I think the point is that it appears to be a *private* system

>No - because any reputable body/person would damn soon correct the
>problem.
        I have frequent problems with certain sets of addresses and have
usually had to change what *I* do to get around the problems

        you do not seem entirely unintelligent, you can do likewise


        also, if unable to post from work ... that would impose a slight
delay / thinking period and that might be useful
-- 
Rex M F Smith

as an example, many systems will not deliver an e-mail that only has BCC
addresses; so to hide addresses of my correspondents (who do not all know each
other) I send each such e-mail to myself, although the copy in my mailbox has
never left the local system ... yeah, have exceeded 4 lines here ...

In message
,
Nuxx Bar  writes

>However much you may dislike someone, they're still of definite gender.

?Really?  Even transsexuals who are, in some jurisdictions, being
allowed to *amend* birth certificates?!


My <limited> understanding of the biological sciences suggests we
cannot, yet, change the biological sex of any adult complex organism ...



        but this is ... w a y ... off - topic
-- 
Rex M F Smith

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:01:56 +0100, Rex M F Smith
 wrote:

>In message , jms
> writes
>
>>Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
>>this way?
>        I think the point is that it appears to be a *private* system


It  was purely the fact that Jackson is too pig-headed to make a
change to *his* system so that anyone from a hotmail or live account
can contact the "public" advertised address for the moderators.

He is saying that *his* system is not suitable for running such a
"public" service.

He knows it doesn't work.

It will be unacceptable to leave that address in place as the
publicised address for the moderators.

If a newcomer emails that address - they may get no response
whatsoever.

This was brought up early on and he chose to ignore it.

That is my complaint - no more  - no less.

I know that people can work around *his* problem

For example - if I need to contact the moderators, I will of course
use one of the many other email addresses at my disposal:-)






-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Nuxx Bar  wrote:

> However much you may dislike someone, they're still of definite gender.

<cough>

Klinefelter's syndrome.

Rex M F Smith  wrote in
news:vjs4AJFJzAgKFw06@gehena.demon.co.uk: 

> In message
>,
> Nuxx Bar  writes
> 
>>However much you may dislike someone, they're still of definite
>>gender. 
> 
> ?Really?  Even transsexuals who are, in some jurisdictions, being
> allowed to *amend* birth certificates?!
> 
> 
> My <limited> understanding of the biological sciences suggests we
> cannot, yet, change the biological sex of any adult complex
> organism ... 
> 
> 
> 
>         but this is ... w a y ... off - topic

AFAIK, transsexuals are allowed to change to the sex they are currently 
not registered as:  they are not allowed to choose indifferent, 
transient or unspecified sex.  So, alterable, but still definite.


-- 
Percy Picacity

At 17:33:38 on Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid> 
wrote in :

>AFAIK, transsexuals are allowed to change to the sex they are currently
>not registered as:  they are not allowed to choose indifferent,
>transient or unspecified sex.  So, alterable, but still definite.

OK, let's start by distinguishing between a transsexual or transgender 
person - one who, in adulthood, knows that they are living in a body of 
the wrong sex, and wants to do something about it - and intersex people, 
who are born with external and/or internal sexual organs which cannot be 
classified as either male nor female, or at least not clearly enough as 
one or the other to satisfy the adults who surround this brand-new baby.

The registration of a baby as male, female or neither depends on the 
country involved.  As I understand it, in Australia (of all places!) 
they are advanced enough to agree legally to register a newborn as being 
of indeterminate sex.

After all, sex is not binary - in other words, it does not have to be 
"one or the other".  It is a spectrum, a continuum;  most people are 
placed at the extremes, but the great majority of them never realise the 
considerable number of people who have to cope with being born in the 
middle range - at which point parents, doctors and other assorted 
bullies feel an irresistible urge to make a decision for that person 
during the first days of their life, long before they are able to say 
for themselves the simple words:  "I am a boy" or "I am a girl" or even 
"I don't know yet".

Such statements of identity, of course, relate to gender ("gender" being 
how the person regards themselves mentally/emotionally, while "sex" 
relates to physical issues, and even chromosomal ones, one example of 
which is Klinefelter's syndrome as mentioned by Steve Firth).  Gender 
seems much more likely to polarise, although there are certainly people 
who don't know whether they feel male or female, and who quite honestly 
don't care.  (Various societies around the world happily accept three 
sexes:  male, female and other.)  However, as compared with those who 
aren't able to classify themselves as male or female, there are huge 
numbers who know, absolutely and with no doubt whatsoever, which gender 
they are;  and the fact that their body does not appear to agree with 
that knowledge is what seems to upset *other people* to a considerable 
degree.

The only reason that it tends to upset the individuals themselves is 
because everybody else they encounter, from birth onwards, is so damned 
uptight about it.

[I guess this is as off-topic for urc as for unnc, but I'm limiting to 
unnc because that's where I'm posting from.  For those who want to know 
a bit more in the way of facts about this stuff, there's a huge amount 
of information on Wikipedia.]
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:27:52 <eGaLacDoaGgKFwx2@molly.mockford> 
uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford 

>[I guess this is as off-topic for urc as for unnc, but I'm limiting to 
>unnc because that's where I'm posting from.  For those who want to know 
>a bit more in the way of facts about this stuff, there's a huge amount 
>of information on Wikipedia.]

My comment is this:

thanks for making your point, Molly.  The vast majority of people never 
confront issues like this.  I, personally, have only ever met a handful 
of people that are of genuinely confused sex.  It is, as Molly says, a 
real thing though.  For most of us (myself included) presuming a set of 
chromosomes is enough.  Taking that basic and extending it to everyone 
is a mistake.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:43:11 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>[I guess this is as off-topic for urc as for unnc, but I'm limiting to 
>>unnc because that's where I'm posting from.  For those who want to know 
>>a bit more in the way of facts about this stuff, there's a huge amount 
>>of information on Wikipedia.]

>thanks for making your point, Molly.  The vast majority of people never 
>confront issues like this.  I, personally, have only ever met a handful 
>of people that are of genuinely confused sex.  It is, as Molly says, a 
>real thing though.  For most of us (myself included) presuming a set of 
>chromosomes is enough.  Taking that basic and extending it to everyone 
>is a mistake.

I have a couple of friends through Wikipedia who are TG, I've also met
a TG woman through cycling and there is a woman in my company who is
TG.  Some people seem to have a real problem allowing for the fact
that these folks have made the choice they have.  It's not an easy
choice and it's certainly not an easy process.  You have to be
extremely determined, and very sincere about your need to change.  I
find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
referring to the person by their former gender.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
 - attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

In uk.net.news.config on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:43:11 +0100, Wm...
 wrote:

> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:27:52 <eGaLacDoaGgKFwx2@molly.mockford> 
> uk.net.news.config Molly Mockford 
>
>>[I guess this is as off-topic for urc as for unnc, but I'm limiting to 
>>unnc because that's where I'm posting from.  For those who want to know 
>>a bit more in the way of facts about this stuff, there's a huge amount 
>>of information on Wikipedia.]
>
> My comment is this:
>
> thanks for making your point, Molly.  The vast majority of people never 
> confront issues like this.  I, personally, have only ever met a handful 
> of people that are of genuinely confused sex.  It is, as Molly says, a 
> real thing though.  For most of us (myself included) presuming a set of 
> chromosomes is enough.  Taking that basic and extending it to everyone 
> is a mistake.

IMO, people are just people, whatever protuberent and/or dangly bits
they may have.

Most people, of course, are so bloody stupid that it beggars belief.

-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:01:02  
uk.net.news.config Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>

>IMO, people are just people, whatever protuberent and/or dangly bits
>they may have.

I like women.

>Most people, of course, are so bloody stupid that it beggars belief.

Yes, quite.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

>  I
> find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
> referring to the person by their former gender.

Indeed, terrible.

So which personal pronoun should be used for judith? Since there's a
general lack of agreement on gender something that's as broad as
possible seems appropriate.

Heshit?
Shite?

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>The only reason that it tends to upset the individuals themselves is 
>because everybody else they encounter, from birth onwards, is so damned 
>uptight about it.

Just catching up - after a month or so away on 't wata.

Thought above paragraph, albeit OT, particularly worth requoting,
though.

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:31:38  
uk.net.news.config . mother <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:
>
>>The only reason that it tends to upset the individuals themselves is
>>because everybody else they encounter, from birth onwards, is so damned
>>uptight about it.
>
>Just catching up - after a month or so away on 't wata.

I'd find it (the ng) daunting after a week at the moment.

>Thought above paragraph, albeit OT, particularly worth requoting,
>though.

I think sensible people agree about that.

P.S. I had a moment when I thought, water, Martyn, land rover and big 
wheels.  Isn't there a law about driving in canals? :)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:04:05 <1j49h94.3zxy0ems6vvcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

>Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>>  I
>> find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
>> referring to the person by their former gender.
>
>Indeed, terrible.
>
>So which personal pronoun should be used for judith? Since there's a
>general lack of agreement on gender something that's as broad as
>possible seems appropriate.
>
>Heshit?
>Shite?

Should we not mark the difference between someone being ambivalent about 
their sex (or where in the spectrum they are) on-line and in RL?

The judith/jms entity has (as far as I know) never been clear about 
their gender.

My personal guess at the moment is that it [1] is a man posing as a 
woman.

[1] it is the entity on usenet, not the person that has chosen not to 
identify themself.

I'm going to continue to use "it" for jms until I know better.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In article ,
Peter J Ross   wrote:
>In uk.net.news.config on 07 Aug 2009 20:13:26 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
>Amery  wrote:
>>  Approximately 75% of mails my sister sends me from her hotmail
>> account never reach my gmail account.
>
>Do they literally not arrive, or does GMail consign them to its spam
>"folder"?

 Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
see if delivery was even attempted.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.   You know the future is cast in the shadows,
   #####             No-one else sees it, but you know your fate.
  #######__o         Packing your bags, being sure and thorough,
  #######'/       Knowing though you're late, that ship is sure to wait. ABBA.

In article ,
jms   wrote:
>
>Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
>this way?
>
 Yes.  See <23k*18XNs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> which you have
roundly ignored.

-- 
Jonathan Amery.       Courage to strengthen,
   #####                 Fire to blind,	     	     - Invocation against the
  #######__o          Music to dazzle,		          Aelfinn and Eelfinn
  #######'/              Iron to bind.                               R.Jordan.

Wm... said:
> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:04:05 <1j49h94.3zxy0ems6vvcN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>
>>>  I
>>> find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
>>> referring to the person by their former gender.
>>
>> Indeed, terrible.
>>
>> So which personal pronoun should be used for judith? Since there's a
>> general lack of agreement on gender something that's as broad as
>> possible seems appropriate.
>>
>> Heshit?
>> Shite?
>
> Should we not mark the difference between someone being ambivalent
> about their sex (or where in the spectrum they are) on-line and in RL?
>
> The judith/jms entity has (as far as I know) never been clear about
> their gender.
>
> My personal guess at the moment is that it [1] is a man posing as a
> woman.
>
> [1] it is the entity on usenet, not the person that has chosen not to
> identify themself.

The Gender Genie would seem to agree with you.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 02:04:05 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>>  I
>> find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
>> referring to the person by their former gender.
>
>Indeed, terrible.
>
>So which personal pronoun should be used for judith? Since there's a
>general lack of agreement on gender something that's as broad as
>possible seems appropriate.
>
>Heshit?
>Shite?
> 

Most people seemed to have settled on Filth for you.

More than a thousand "Filth"s  in uk.transport alone - those will be
you - won't they?




-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:31:08 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>
>I'm going to continue to use "it" for jms until I know better.
>
>-- 
>Wm...
>Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

If you use "it" - people may not know to whom you refer.

Fair enough -and  I will use "the fuckwit Wm.."

People will be in no doubt.




-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Judith M Smith  wrote:

> More than a thousand "Filth"s  in uk.transport alone - those will be
> you - won't they?

Some people, you seem to be one of them, are so dumb that they can't
read a sequence of letters and type them in exactly the same sequence.
Bizarre, presumably slightly embarassing, but sadly it happens. I feel
pity for you, obviously.

Do you have any other problems that you wish to discuss? Or are you
getting back to your impromptu primal scream therapy as you attempt to
work out your many personal problems by screeching at cyclists?

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:46:01  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:31:08 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:

>>I'm going to continue to use "it" for jms until I know better.

[not sure why it quoted my .sig, it is the same below]

>If you use "it" - people may not know to whom you refer.

That is wrong, people know who "it" is in the current discussion.

>Fair enough -and  I will use "the fuckwit Wm.."

I am not troubled by you calling me a fuckwit.

>People will be in no doubt.

You are "it" [1] :)

[1] I suppose the Shakespearean ref will go over the jms head

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

jms  wrote:

> Sorry Filth- you have lost me:

Oh, I don't doubt it, Pubeith. That happens a lot when people like me
talk to pondscum like you. Try going back into the education system, and
seeing if they can knock something in second time around.

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:55:46 <1j4ah7n.11yuq8013p2midN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>

>jms  wrote:
>
>> Sorry Filth- you have lost me:
>
>Oh, I don't doubt it, Pubeith. That happens a lot when people like me
>talk to pondscum like you.

Do we know who the jms is yet?

> Try going back into the education system, and
>seeing if they can knock something in second time around.
>

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 11 Aug 2009 10:59:48 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Amery
 wrote:

>In article ,
>jms   wrote:
>>
>>Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
>>this way?
>>
> Yes.  See <23k*18XNs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> which you have
>roundly ignored.

FWIW, last time I tried, Demon's Webmail interface wouldn't display
emails from  a Gmail account .
 
-- 

Pete

At 10:21:45 on Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Wm... 
 wrote in 
:

>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:31:38  
>uk.net.news.config . mother <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>
>
>>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:27:52 +0100, Molly Mockford
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The only reason that it tends to upset the individuals themselves is
>>>because everybody else they encounter, from birth onwards, is so damned
>>>uptight about it.
>>
>>Just catching up - after a month or so away on 't wata.
>
>I'd find it (the ng) daunting after a week at the moment.
>
>>Thought above paragraph, albeit OT, particularly worth requoting,
>>though.
>
>I think sensible people agree about that.
>
>P.S. I had a moment when I thought, water, Martyn, land rover and big 
>wheels.  Isn't there a law about driving in canals? :)

In the circumstances, it would probably not be helpful to mention that 
Mother is amphibious.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

jms  wrote:

> What do you mean  - what do you want - dob, address phone number?

Did you know a search for "judith" and "stupid" returns over 36000 hits?

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:21:45 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>>Just catching up - after a month or so away on 't wata.
>
>I'd find it (the ng) daunting after a week at the moment.

Only a couple of Thousand - almost like the old days, but sans the
ability to delete half based on the poster being Cummins.

>P.S. I had a moment when I thought, water, Martyn, land rover and big 
>wheels.  Isn't there a law about driving in canals? :)

Oddly, the big purple truck with huge wheels (the tread of which makes
it hard to extracate cyclists - just to get back on topic) is exactly
the same width of the purple narrowboat.  This could lead to
interesting possibilities...

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:18:13 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>In the circumstances, it would probably not be helpful to mention that 
>Mother is amphibious.

Does that mean I can wave with either hand?

On 11 Aug 2009 10:59:48 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Amery
 wrote:

>In article ,
>jms   wrote:
>>
>>Has anyone identified any other "public" system which is broken in
>>this way?
>>
> Yes.  See <23k*18XNs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> which you have
>roundly ignored.


Yes because you are not talking about a "public" system in the way
that I was.

The address given is an "official" address to reach the moderators.

Do you know of any other publicised addresses for reaching
organisations which will knowingly refuse to accept emails  from
hotmail and live?

Jackson has known about the problems with his system for years and has
failed to make it work properly -  purely down to arrogance and
pig-headedness.

His whole approach to the matter was the root cause of him getting
sacked as a Vote taker.

He was not fit then to be a vote taker - and he is not fit now to run
the moderation system and be chief moderator.


-- 
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:18:24  
uk.net.news.config . m <nospam@notnominet.name.invalid>

Wm:
>>P.S. I had a moment when I thought, water, Martyn, land rover and big
>>wheels.  Isn't there a law about driving in canals? :)
>
>Oddly, the big purple truck with huge wheels (the tread of which makes
>it hard to extracate cyclists - just to get back on topic) is exactly
>the same width of the purple narrowboat.  This could lead to
>interesting possibilities...

I think what you need to do is lay them back to back on their sides and 
tie them together.  You will probably need a big purple crane to manage 
the water / road interface, they can be expensive and are not 
particularly partner friendly, other than that I think it'll work.

<fx: glances at Subject: line>  you want them back to back because if 
they mate there is no way of telling what the offspring would be, except 
purple.

Water users and cyclists tend to get on quite well in my experience. How 
many bargee's don't own a bicycle?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Judith M Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:13:33 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
> 
> >jms  wrote:
> >
> >> What do you mean  - what do you want - dob, address phone number?
> >
> >Did you know a search for "judith" and "stupid" returns over 36000 hits?
> 
> Now, now Filth - you're not very good at this are you.

I'm way better at that you, Trollith.
 
> The  "judith" and  "stupid" - giving 36,000 hits is probably nothing
> to do with  *me* whatsoever.

You keep telling yourself that. Or better still let the voices in your
head tell you.

In uk.net.news.config on 11 Aug 2009 10:57:15 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
Amery  wrote:

> In article ,
> Peter J Ross   wrote:
>>In uk.net.news.config on 07 Aug 2009 20:13:26 +0100 (BST), Jonathan
>>Amery  wrote:
>>>  Approximately 75% of mails my sister sends me from her hotmail
>>> account never reach my gmail account.
>>
>>Do they literally not arrive, or does GMail consign them to its spam
>>"folder"?
>
>  Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
> see if delivery was even attempted.

OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
discusses email problems. I regret being unable to solve your problem
or think of an appropriate newsgroup to recommend.



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

In article ,
Peter J Ross   wrote:
>
>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>discusses email problems. I regret being unable to solve your problem
>or think of an appropriate newsgroup to recommend.
>
 The problem is almost certainly unsoluable and due to Hotmail
refusing to meet internet standards.

 (and since I have only one correspondant who uses Hotmail this isn't
really a problem).

-- 
Jonathan Amery.  "People always love themselves best.  But in a world so
   #####           interconnected that harm to one is harm to all, the best
  #######__o       way of loving one's self is to love everyone else, too.  "
  #######'/                              - The Nations in Space, Isaac Asimov.

In message , jms
 writes

>Do you know of any other publicised addresses for reaching
>organisations which will knowingly refuse to accept emails  from
>hotmail and live?

I know of *the* publicised address for the FSA, where they refused to
give a receipt for a company's annual report and accounts and whose
absence they were threatening legal action over ...

        ?is there much difference?

                "My property, my rules" ...
-- 
Rex M F Smith

On 13 Aug 2009 13:11:48 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Amery
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Peter J Ross   wrote:
>>
>>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>>discusses email problems. I regret being unable to solve your problem
>>or think of an appropriate newsgroup to recommend.
>>
> The problem is almost certainly unsoluable and due to Hotmail
>refusing to meet internet standards.
>
Comes back to the old joke:-

How many Microsoft Developers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None - they just declare darkness a standard.

 
-- 

Pete

Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>Amery  wrote:
>>Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
>>see if delivery was even attempted.
>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>discusses email problems.

I missed the bit where JDA was asking anything at all.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was Gouday, July.
Today is Chedday, July.
Tomorrow will be Stilday, July - a weekend.

On Aug 14, 2:07 am, David Damerell 
wrote:
> Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>
> >Amery  wrote:
> >>Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
> >>see if delivery was even attempted.
> >OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
> >discusses email problems.
>
> I missed the bit where JDA was asking anything at all.

Hey I resemble that remark!

JD Annan

BTW is your sig sep broken? Maybe a google groups problem thobut.

> --

On Aug 14, 10:04 am, James  wrote:


> BTW is your sig sep broken? Maybe a google groups problem thobut.

Looks like it's GG, unless *everyone* has dropped the terminal space
and not told me as a joke. Wonder if it is a new problem or whether I
just hadn't noticed before.

James

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:23:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:43:11 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>>[I guess this is as off-topic for urc as for unnc, but I'm limiting to 
>>>unnc because that's where I'm posting from.  For those who want to know 
>>>a bit more in the way of facts about this stuff, there's a huge amount 
>>>of information on Wikipedia.]
>
>>thanks for making your point, Molly.  The vast majority of people never 
>>confront issues like this.  I, personally, have only ever met a handful 
>>of people that are of genuinely confused sex.  It is, as Molly says, a 
>>real thing though.  For most of us (myself included) presuming a set of 
>>chromosomes is enough.  Taking that basic and extending it to everyone 
>>is a mistake.
>
>I have a couple of friends through Wikipedia who are TG, I've also met
>a TG woman through cycling and there is a woman in my company who is
>TG.  Some people seem to have a real problem allowing for the fact
>that these folks have made the choice they have.  It's not an easy
>choice and it's certainly not an easy process.  You have to be
>extremely determined, and very sincere about your need to change.  I
>find it upsetting when people trivialise these things or insist on
>referring to the person by their former gender.
>
>Guy


so do I

In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 18:07:10 +0100 (BST), David
Damerell  wrote:

> Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>>Amery  wrote:
>>>Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
>>>see if delivery was even attempted.
>>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>>discusses email problems.
>
> I missed the bit where JDA was asking anything at all.

I missed the bit where I said he was asking anything, though I saw the
bit where I advised him to ask something elsewhere, having run out of
ideas myself.

Are all the users of chiark.greenend.org.uk email addresses proposed
moderators? If so, perhaps some of you should be a little less
twitchy.


-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:06:38 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

>In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 18:07:10 +0100 (BST), David
>Damerell  wrote:
>
>> Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>>>Amery  wrote:
>>>>Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
>>>>see if delivery was even attempted.
>>>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>>>discusses email problems.
>>
>> I missed the bit where JDA was asking anything at all.
>
>I missed the bit where I said he was asking anything, though I saw the
>bit where I advised him to ask something elsewhere, having run out of
>ideas myself.
>
>Are all the users of chiark.greenend.org.uk email addresses proposed
>moderators? If so, perhaps some of you should be a little less
>twitchy.


They could be - they are all hand-picked by Jackson.

Braggins  is - Jackson (as his provider)  had to slap his legs for
altering a post when he replied  to it.

I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
email address which many people will not be able to mail to.  There is
to be no discussion of policy/decision  in the group - so I can see
the need for a reputable email address.  But this is not to be.

In article , moderation2009
@live.co.uk says...
> I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
> email address which many people will not be able to mail to.
> 

I thought this was all explained and settled. AFAIU, the moderators 
address resolves (eventually) to a Gradwell server(usenet.org.uk), and 
chirak will accept mail from Gradwell.

Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )

-- 
Alan LeHun

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>In article , moderation2009
>@live.co.uk says...
>> I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
>> email address which many people will not be able to mail to.
>> 
>
>I thought this was all explained and settled. AFAIU, the moderators 
>address resolves (eventually) to a Gradwell server(usenet.org.uk), and 
>chirak will accept mail from Gradwell.
>
>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )


That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other things.

He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
that what you/CL  say is the case.

I look forward to him clarifying that this is indeed how things will
work.

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:23:38  
uk.rec.cycling jms 

>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>that what you/CL  say is the case.
>
>I look forward to him clarifying that this is indeed how things will
>work.

Which he is him?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:52:09 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:23:38  
>uk.rec.cycling jms 
>
>>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>>that what you/CL  say is the case.
>>
>>I look forward to him clarifying that this is indeed how things will
>>work.
>
>Which he is him?


The clue was in the sentence you snipped out:

"That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other
things."

I then  referred to "he" - twice

I then referred to "him"


English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?

(You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
you make)

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:35:33  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?
>
>(You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
>you make)

My english abilities are above yours.  Leave that bit of your argument 
alone for now.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:35:33 
> uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>> English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?
>>
>> (You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
>> you make)
>
> My english abilities are above yours.  Leave that bit of your argument
> alone for now.

I expect that there are a variety of views on that subject.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:20:31 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:35:33  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?
>>
>>(You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
>>you make)
>
>My english abilities are above yours.  Leave that bit of your argument 
>alone for now.


Really?

You seem to have to struggled with a couple of very straightforward
posts recently.


"My english <sic> "......  say no more.

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:59:33  
uk.net.news.config Brimstone 

>Wm... wrote:
>> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:35:33 
>> uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>> English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?
>>>
>>> (You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
>>> you make)
>>
>> My english abilities are above yours.  Leave that bit of your argument
>> alone for now.
>
>I expect that there are a variety of views on that subject.

Possibly, yes.  But you'd need to know a few varieties of english to 
know that.

The jms entity only appears to know one: speak often, speak loudly.

"I want a loaf of bread, I WANT A LOAF OF BREAD" etc.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:18:42  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:20:31 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:35:33 
>>uk.net.news.config jms 
>>
>>>English is really not difficult - have you considered night school?
>>>
>>>(You  do not have to prove that you are a fuckwit with *every* post
>>>you make)
>>
>>My english abilities are above yours.  Leave that bit of your argument
>>alone for now.
>
>
>Really?
>
>You seem to have to struggled with a couple of very straightforward
>posts recently.

Go on, tell all.

>"My english <sic> "......  say no more.

This should be fun.  I was making a statement.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Alan LeHun  considered Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100
the perfect time to write:

>In article , moderation2009
>@live.co.uk says...
>> I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
>> email address which many people will not be able to mail to.
>> 
>
>I thought this was all explained and settled. AFAIU, the moderators 
>address resolves (eventually) to a Gradwell server(usenet.org.uk), and 
>chirak will accept mail from Gradwell.
>
>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )

To expect it to understand mail forwarding when it can't unwrap a link
correctly is crediting it with far more clue than is warranted.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:38:17 +0100, Phil W Lee
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

>Alan LeHun  considered Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100
>the perfect time to write:
>
>>In article , moderation2009
>>@live.co.uk says...
>>> I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
>>> email address which many people will not be able to mail to.
>>> 
>>
>>I thought this was all explained and settled. AFAIU, the moderators 
>>address resolves (eventually) to a Gradwell server(usenet.org.uk), and 
>>chirak will accept mail from Gradwell.
>>
>>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
>>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )
>
>To expect it to understand mail forwarding when it can't unwrap a link
>correctly is crediting it with far more clue than is warranted.


Good I am pleased to see that you think you understand the process.

Has Jackson actually  confirmed it yet?

In  jms  writes:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:

>>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
>>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )


>That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other things.

>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>that what you/CL  say is the case.

Ian Jackson has no say in the matter. It WILL be set up as I described it.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131            Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:09:03  
uk.net.news.config Charles Lindsey 

>In  jms 
> writes:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:
>
>>>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was
>>>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )
>
>
>>That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other things.
>
>>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>>that what you/CL  say is the case.
>
>Ian Jackson has no say in the matter. It WILL be set up as I described it.

I don't think jms knows who you are, Chuckles.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In uk.net.news.config on Sat, 15 Aug 2009 23:55:29 +0100, jms
 wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:06:38 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.config on 13 Aug 2009 18:07:10 +0100 (BST), David
>>Damerell  wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting  Peter J Ross  :
>>>>Amery  wrote:
>>>>>Literally don't arrive.  Of course I can't see gmail's mail logs to
>>>>>see if delivery was even attempted.
>>>>OK. You need to ask in a more appropriate newsgroup - one that
>>>>discusses email problems.
>>>
>>> I missed the bit where JDA was asking anything at all.
>>
>>I missed the bit where I said he was asking anything, though I saw the
>>bit where I advised him to ask something elsewhere, having run out of
>>ideas myself.
>>
>>Are all the users of chiark.greenend.org.uk email addresses proposed
>>moderators? If so, perhaps some of you should be a little less
>>twitchy.
>
> They could be - they are all hand-picked by Jackson.

They're also approved by me and everybody else who has scrutinised the
list of moderators, except you.

I'm not happy with having this newsgroup created, but I have no
worries about the competence and goodwill of the moderators.

> Braggins  is - Jackson (as his provider)  had to slap his legs for
> altering a post when he replied  to it.

Damn, somebody post-edited for humour's sake? How evil!

> I still believe that one day a woman will give me her love, renounce
> bicycles as Satan's preferred mode of transport, and tolerate my
> extreme weirdness in return for my extremely long and flexible
> tongue.

Good luck with that.

Oh dearie dearie me! Have I accidentally put some words into your
mouth? Oops!



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:43:51 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:09:03  
>uk.net.news.config Charles Lindsey 
>>Ian Jackson has no say in the matter. It WILL be set up as I described it.
>
>I don't think jms knows who you are, Chuckles.

Splutter...

In uk.net.news.config on Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun
 wrote:

> In article , moderation2009
> @live.co.uk says...
>> I still believe it is unacceptable  to have a publicised  moderator
>> email address which many people will not be able to mail to.
>> 
>
> I thought this was all explained and settled.

Yes, it was.

There's no technical reason to object to object to the new newsgroup.

Current objections resolve to the following:

1. Usenet is traditionally mostly unmoderated, and ought to stay
that way.

That's my objection.


2. URC is a handy bucket to shit in, and I don't want my bucket to be
taken away by people who have beaten me in debate.

That's jms's objection.



-- 
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:09:03 GMT, "Charles Lindsey"
 wrote:

>In  jms  writes:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:
>
>>>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was 
>>>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )
>
>
>>That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other things.
>
>>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>>that what you/CL  say is the case.
>
>Ian Jackson has no say in the matter. It WILL be set up as I described it.


Excellent many thanks for clarification.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:43:51 +0100, "Wm...the fuckwit"
 wrote:

>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:09:03  
>uk.net.news.config Charles Lindsey 
>
>>In  jms 
>> writes:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:29:04 +0100, Alan LeHun  wrote:
>>
>>>>Or have I missed something critical amongst all the clue that was
>>>>posted? (Clue ref:  Charles Lindsey )
>>
>>
>>>That was suggested to Ian Jackson - as indeed were many other things.
>>
>>>He has not agreed it - but he is perfectly happy for people to believe
>>>that what you/CL  say is the case.
>>
>>Ian Jackson has no say in the matter. It WILL be set up as I described it.
>
>I don't think jms knows who you are, Chuckles.


Yawn - I know who you are fuckwit.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:32:25 +0100, Peter J Ross <pjr@example.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>


>
>Good luck with that.
>
>Oh dearie dearie me! Have I accidentally put some words into your
>mouth? Oops!


very grown up and mature.