On Sunday 10 April 2005 20:45, David Hoffman wrote: >On Apr 10, 2005 11:34 AM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I took your address out of the address line David, I'm getting >> enough of those trash confirm requests (Peter Whalley has started >> up again), in extremely bulky html format no less, that I do >> nothing but hit the delete key pon them. Please don't waste >> space in my inbox with your 5k-8k worth of a simple 50 character >> question wrapped in 5 to 10 kilobytes of html. I'm one of those >> to whom html is a waste of bandwidth & cpu resources to display. >> Yes, it has its place, but it sure isn't welcome on most mailing >> lists. >> >> Now, if my response was to have given a clear and concise amswer >> to your question (not bloodly likely, I'm way too verbose 99% of >> the time as this list knows very well, but that just me being an >> old fart), but you didn't see that response because I didn't jump >> thru the hoops to conform to your somewhat narrow view of how >> things 'should' work, then who is the ultimate loser? Me, for >> wasting the time to answer in the first place, or you, because you >> didn't get the reply, so your problem isn't fixed? >> >> Good question, that... Now, if the message somehow contains an >> advisory that you are using such a system, I wouldn't have >> bothered replying in the first place, and you still wouldn't have >> an answer. No net effect on you, but a large one for me, which >> probably means it will never come to pass. > >I'm sorry Gene, but did you have something to say here or were you >just ranting on with some useless drivel? I am not Peter Whalley, > and I have never sent any challenge/response messages to this list, > so you can take me out of that category. I have no idea what you > mean about taking my address out of the address line. This e-mail > account is not using TMDA, so I don't know what your major > complaint to me is. You have never gotten a challenge from me. I did get a challenge from your mail server or from your email agent, I wasn't paying that much attention. I've left you in the To: line of this message, which if I'm correct, will generate another such challenge. Since I'm not going to validate it, I'll fwd it to the list so that you can see what I'm receiving. >My messages were simply based on the premise that Peter Whally is >using some type of C/R system that he does not know how to > configure. I personally am of the same opinion as about everyone > else on this list... if he want's to subscribe to a mailing list > then he better be sure not to pollute the list with his stupid > requests. My thoughts exactly David. >But what on earth does your message mean, and why are you even > writing to me about it? If you have something to say about anything > I wrote, then by all means say it, but know what you are talking > about before you write paragraphs of senseless garbage. I'm not fussing about what you wrote, nor trying to brag about what I may have written, but I do object to having to deal with fixing the To: header because of C/R stuff when blindly replying to a mailing list. I would much rather attend to the subject the poster is asking about if I have any knowledge that might be helpfull. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
