Re: SPAM ?

[sen_ml@xxxxxxxxxxx]

wk>  On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 08:41:50AM +0100
wk>  ulrich.moser@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

wk> I don't think that it is a good idea to have a closed ML, mainly
wk> because it is not easy to have anoymous poster.

i agree as i think the ability for anonymous posting is essential --
especially in this area ;-)

i suppose a hack of asking anonymous posters to include some string
like 'rfc 2440' in their posts and filtering anonymous posts based on
that is not desirable...instructions for doing this could be included
where subscription information is mentioned.  i suppose that might be
annoying for anoynmous posters.  well, just a thought anyway.

wk> By the way, anything new on an updated RFC?

speaking of which, did anybody read my comments other than the 'thank
you' at the top of the message dated:

   Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:25:24 +0900

w/ message-id:

   <19991207232524X.1000@xxxxxxxxxxx>

?  i didn't get any replies about them -- i'd at least like to know if
my comments were off, silly, etc.  i do think that the rfc as it currently
reads is ambiguous w.r.t. partial body lengths.