>Don't include the full message on that you are replying to your message, if
>it is not necessary for your message!!! (I've included an example at the
>end of this message.)
Sorry Karsten, but I'm from the old school where netiquette had some sort of
meaning. ;-)
I realise that that it is not practiced as much as it should be anymore but out
of courtesy to the original author I always include the original text with my
reply as well as quoting small parts. I think this is especially important on
mailing lists. Too easily can a sentence or paragraph be quoted out of context
in an email. I won't be ceasing this practice (you know old dogs new tricks,
etc, etc).
On another point I don't think it is fair for some RML users (and I don't point
this at any particular individuals) to start making demands on other users in
respect to their use. The internet is what it is and the same goes for the RML.
If the people concerned don't like it then desub, cancel your internet
subscription, shoot your ISP, I don't care but don't bother me with your
gripes. Since I've been on this list I've been hassled about slang, gender
specific phrases, spelling, email habits & SPAM. It's not my problem, all the
winges can go to hell!
I actually agree with A&A this time around and quite honestly I don't know how
they have put up with all the crap that they have (not that I am totally
innocent) for so long. The winges have not been successful in changing the
list, all they have done threaten the future of this list.
And finally, the truth of the RML is that most emails are SPAM and maybe we
should work under this assumption and get people to put 'FISH' in the subject
line where appropriate. :^)
Scott Hunt. :-(
rainbowfish-owner#064#pcug.org.au - SMTPGATE at WT400 on 20/05/97 05:32:07 PM
To: rainbowfish#064#pcug.org.au - SMTPGATE at WT400
cc:
Subject: [RML] S P A M: Open letter, Test and anything else
Ok, because some listmembers seem not to read all messages on the list,
here are some examples for Harro's request for SPAM:
1.
> Subject: [RML] Test
>
> Good afternoon...
>
> Test Message.
2.
>Subject: Re: [RML] Test
>
>At 13:28 18/05/97 -0600, Jim wrote:
>>Good afternoon...
>>
>>Test Message.
>
>Good Morning...Jim
3.
> Subject: Re: [RML] Test
>
> Good Morning Jim, Adrian and All
4.
> Subject: SPAM (was Re: [RML] Test)
>
> At 06:21 AM 5/19/97 +1000, Adrian wrote:
> >At 13:28 18/05/97 -0600, Jim wrote:
> >>Good afternoon...
> >>
> >>Test Message.
> >
> >Good Morning...Jim
> >
> >Adrian.
>
> Good Evening, Adrian and Jim.
Jim, Adrian and Barry and ANDREW, do you think it is REALLY necessary for all
listmembers to read such messages???????
And to pay for such messages?????? (I know, not everybody has to pay for it,
but there are members they have!!!!!)
I think there are two better ways: Include the little word SPAM in the subject,
or, very much better: Send it via private email to the target!
That's all, Harro wanted to say!
5. Another example:
> Subject: Re: [RML] ulcer disease
>
> Well Bruce, it made it to the RML! You are smarter than you think!
>
> How is the fish biz going? Do you have any saratogas I can get from you
> when I am there next month? I need 5 small ones. I have a permit to export
> from OZ now so I am legal. :-)
Is this the right subject? Is this a message for the RML????? I think
(I am personally!!) this is an absolutely private message, that could have
been send from the sender to the target just via private email, not via the
RML!!!
Ok, another word to Andrew and Alan:
I think it is very normal to get tired of such a work after a period of time.
So I think it is a valid request for another home of the list. But on the
other hand you both are a little bit touchy. You're not responsible for what
other listmembers are doing, so don't refer any criticism, that is targeted to
all(!!) listmembers, to yourself!
That's what Chris has said before!
Ok, I hope you all calm down and interact with each other like grown-up humans.
Hope you'll understand it,
Karsten
PS.: There's another point to criticise (refers to the most listmembers! not
just Andrew and Alan :-))
Don't include the full message on that you are replying to your message, if
it is not necessary for your message!!! (I've included an example at the
end of this message.)
\//
(= o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo---------------------------------------------------
Karsten Zander Universitaet Hannover
e-mail: zander at irb.uni-hannover.de Germany
http://www.irb.uni-hannover.de/~zander
----------
> From: Bruce Sambell <ausyfish at tpgi.com.au>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: [RML] ulcer disease
> Date: Monday, May 19, 1997 5:20 AM
>
> Chriss,a year or so ago I had a conversation with a scientist from one of
> the gvt. research centers in N.S.W.( I can't remember exactly who or
where)
> He told me that he believed some ulcers on fish are caused by a type of
> fungus. He went on to explain to me (after my protesting) that there are
> two types of fungus. One that attacks dead flesh, the one we all are
> familuar with, and another which is quite a bit more sinister as it
attacks
> live flesh! I can't recall any more details of this conversation.In our
> experance we have never seen a single ulcer on any fish in a pond.
However
> I have seen it on rainbows in aquariums, and always in a tank that has
not
> had a water change for an extended period. I have never used any
treatment,
> nor could I bring myself to destroy one of my favorate animals. Almost
> always the fish recovered once I got back to my usual water changes.
There
> is, no doubt, a lot more to this problem than meets the eye and there is
,I
> understand some research is being done on behalf of the comercial
> aquaculture industry. I am very much an amiter when it comes to this
sort
> of thing but I thought You might be interested. Best regards Bruce
Sambell.
> P.S. I was going to send this on the RML but I am New to this computer
> business and I don't know how!
>