From mouse@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA Fri Dec 03 22:10:54 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:10:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from sparkle.rodents.montreal.qc.ca ([216.46.5.7] ident=TGwhPG9m5MOyGJDPeOI6zDiCPzfrs02I5fPEaARwOiy) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CaT89-0001Q0-QP for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:10:54 -0800 Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA03146; Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:10:48 -0500 (EST) From: der Mouse Message-Id: <200412040610.BAA03146@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway. Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:54:54 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: more 'suck' In-Reply-To: <20041202174828.GL25791@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <200412010851.DAA18717@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20041201184409.GI25791@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <200412020815.DAA04495@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <20041202174828.GL25791@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-archive-position: 930 X-Approved-By: mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners >>> Furthermore, how would you convert [messages with forbidden >>> characters in their headers]? >> Convert them? I wouldn't. I'd bounce them. >> Indeed, I *do* bounce them. >> [I've been doing it for a while to list mail with such errors.] > Indeed, I had forgotten about that. > And you are THE ONLY ONE. I don't quite see what that has to do with it. You appear to think that...well, actually, it's not quite clear what. That because nobody else checks for it, that it's not a violation? That it's somehow an acceptable spec to ignore, despite all the good reasons why such octets are forbidden? > It's very obnoxious; please stop. No. If it's really that important to you, so important that you demand subscribers' mailers wave off gross syntax errors in list mail, I guess you'll just have to unsubscribe me. (The attitude that it's somehow obnoxious to call your mailer on emitting syntax errors in even as mild a way as merely rejecting such standards-violating mail, *I* find pretty obnoxious, actually.) To the rest of the list, since I probably will be gone soon, I'll miss you and the interesting and thought-provoking discussions I've seen here, and I hope I someday run into a lojban list which is less, well, obnoxious. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B