Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:49 -0500 > From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) Er, David's right -- I only see "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"; apparently either some software on your end appends your domain name to "apparently local" addresses. -miles -- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In your email's headers one can read: He's not sending email. He's posting an article to the gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup. If you are seeing it as email, it's because you are using a usenet-to-email gateway, and that's what's adding your domain. No-one else sees that address. -- Richard -- "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:16 -0500, rjack escreveu: > Now I'm not such a bad guy after all am I? You're a complete dimwit second personality of Alexander Terekhov. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 11:27 -0500, John Hasler escreveu: I see "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" reading via Usenet. If I was receiving the mailing list I would see "From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" but I would not be disturbed because I know how my email software works. My MTA rejects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rui Sigh. I am unsure what triggered the paranoid reaction to a fake email address but I have created a real live account (guaranteed to work) at with 100 megabytes of cyclical redundancy. You are welcome to post all the vituperative messages that it requires to vent your anger. The servers are located offshore, but I am fairly certain the island will not sink irrespective of the number of hate messages you manage to send. The account will cost me $7.00 a month but it's certainly worth it if it alleviates your obvious mental anguish. Now I'm not such a bad guy after all am I? rjack ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:40 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu: >> David is correct, it is your setup that is b0rked. Here is the full >> message with header and all. You can even look at ftp://lists.gnu.org >> and see how it is handled for the mailing lists. > > Explain how come my MTA *rejects* [EMAIL PROTECTED] then? Is it magic, > perhaps? It does not reject gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org, presumably. I recommend that you learn the difference between the "From: " header in a mail and the "From " line in an mbox file usually (but not necessarily) derived from the SMTP greeting. I would not go as far as to claim that your setup is broken (putting a default mail domain into some headers is not uncommon in order to make them replyable), but it would seem that you don't understand what your system is doing here. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 11:27 -0500, John Hasler escreveu: >> I see "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" reading via Usenet. If I was >> receiving the >> mailing list I would see "From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" but I would not be >> disturbed because I know how my email software works. > > My MTA rejects [EMAIL PROTECTED] The verified address would be the mailing list address. That one is valid. Really, at the moment there seems to be some sort of competition who can get the most egg on one's face. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
I see "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" reading via Usenet. If I was receiving the mailing list I would see "From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" but I would not be disturbed because I know how my email software works. Depends on who is on the receiving end, my messages come through as addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 11:27 -0500, John Hasler escreveu: > I see "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" reading via Usenet. If I was > receiving the > mailing list I would see "From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" but I would not be > disturbed because I know how my email software works. My MTA rejects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:40 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu: > David is correct, it is your setup that is b0rked. Here is the full > message with header and all. You can even look at ftp://lists.gnu.org > and see how it is handled for the mailing lists. Explain how come my MTA *rejects* [EMAIL PROTECTED] then? Is it magic, perhaps? Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
rjack writes: > The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is faked to prevent GNU disciples and > SPAMMERS The proper way to obfuscate your email is to use something like "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" or "[EMAIL PROTECTED],invalid". These domains are reserved. Rui writes: > In your email's headers one can read: > From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Only you see that. I see "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" reading via Usenet. If I was receiving the mailing list I would see "From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" but I would not be disturbed because I know how my email software works. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 05:51 -0500, rjack escreveu: > > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by > > > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. > > > > > > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS > > > > > > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org > > > > > > Rui > > > > > > > The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is faked to prevent GNU disciples and > > SPAMMERS > > Fuck you. In your email's headers one can read: Hey mini-RMS, you're also quite talented! http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/71da364161ef34db?dmode=source "From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
David is correct, it is your setup that is b0rked. Here is the full message with header and all. You can even look at ftp://lists.gnu.org and see how it is handled for the mailing lists. X-Coding-System: iso-8859-1-unix Mail-from: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 26 18:01:19 2007 Received: from lgh163a.kemisten.nu ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [IPv6:::1]) by lgh163a.kemisten.nu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l4QBaJUZ027723 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 26 May 2007 13:36:19 +0200 (CEST) Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivery-date: Sat, 26 May 2007 07:41:45 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164] by lgh163a.kemisten.nu with POP3 (fetchmail-6.3.2) for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (single-drop); Sat, 26 May 2007 13:36:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1HrueX-0006bm-3c for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:41:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1Hruef-0004Mc-Tp for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:41:54 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on monty-python X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id 1Hruef-0004MY-PM for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:41:53 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hruef-00046H-P4 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sat, 26 May 2007 07:41:53 -0400 Path: shelby.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.insightbb.com!news.insightbb.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:49 -0500 From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.142.17.209 X-Trace: sv3-QNFwQ5t1WWqf2VXprO85KleL7je1bMy7pe/LONxnsdEr5RYvFa+3bjltPJ7HrTrTNPMAXFKpXxKfhcW!a79VT+jUvSoaat4Cejr1I9omrZG7zPRYYDxdn3L+5POiz+pRrgAuFCh0c2xhi+tmS0y9EMBuXIny!qbp/UXzwD4SStGRgJQ== X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-DMCA-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.34 Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.misc.discuss:93598 To: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org Subject: Re: GNU FUD X-BeenThere: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General GNU project and free software discussions List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/gnu-misc-discuss> List-Post: <mailto:gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-UIDL: kn-!!GS(#!2F)#!Sb1!! Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. > > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS > > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org > > Rui > The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is faked to prevent GNU disciples and SPAMMERS from overwhelming my true email address. There are so many crackpot zealots practicing the GNU relgion that I even receive crank phone calls from Europe in the middle of the night. Many serious observers of Intellectual Property law like Alexander Terekov know my true email address. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 18:24 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: > >> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by > >> > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. > >> > > >> > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS > >> > > >> > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org > >> > >> While I agree that the original poster is rather incoherent, I am > >> afraid that this particular complaint is nonsense. His faked from > >> address is just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", namely a host named "com" with no > >> specified domain. Any "1407.org" domain you might have been seeing > >> has been added by your own software or your interpretation of its > >> output. His posting contains nothing of the sort. > > > > Sorry but no way: > > > > Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:49 -0500 > > From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) > > Your mail server has added the domain in order to create a complete > mailing address. If you had been reading this posting from a > Newsserver instead of by mail, like you can see with all original > headers at > http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e68e7d970b543ef2>, > you'd not have seen your domain added. > > Again: in this respect you are mistaken about the original poster, and > it might be smart to stop this before you are giving him ideas. No I am not: helo 250 mail.1407.org mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 Ok rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 504 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Sender address rejected: need fully-qualified address While: helo 250 mail.1407.org mail from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 Ok rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 250 Ok DATA 354 End data with . ... . 250 Ok: queued as ECF4C2015D See the difference? Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: >> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by >> > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. >> > >> > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS >> > >> > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org >> >> While I agree that the original poster is rather incoherent, I am >> afraid that this particular complaint is nonsense. His faked from >> address is just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", namely a host named "com" with no >> specified domain. Any "1407.org" domain you might have been seeing >> has been added by your own software or your interpretation of its >> output. His posting contains nothing of the sort. > > Sorry but no way: > > Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:49 -0500 > From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) Your mail server has added the domain in order to create a complete mailing address. If you had been reading this posting from a Newsserver instead of by mail, like you can see with all original headers at http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/e68e7d970b543ef2>, you'd not have seen your domain added. Again: in this respect you are mistaken about the original poster, and it might be smart to stop this before you are giving him ideas. His choice of a fake mail domain _is_, by the way, idiotic, but it does not single you out. He should pick something ending in ".invalid" if he is really out to have an invalid address. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Please stop spamming the list with profanity, it isn't useful. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Sáb, 2007-05-26 às 12:07 +0200, David Kastrup escreveu: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by > > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. > > > > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS > > > > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org > > While I agree that the original poster is rather incoherent, I am > afraid that this particular complaint is nonsense. His faked from > address is just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", namely a host named "com" with no > specified domain. Any "1407.org" domain you might have been seeing > has been added by your own software or your interpretation of its > output. His posting contains nothing of the sort. Sorry but no way: Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 05:51:49 -0500 From: rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] > >> By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid > >> observer of what you call "Intellectual Property law" (there is > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law > > > >> actually no such thing, as there are disparate laws about the items > >> grouped under this term). The problem is that he is completely unable > >> to draw any reasonable conclusions from his observations: his > >> predictions are consistently utterly wrong, and he blames this on > >> "drunk judges" and similar excuses. > > > > Do you really want to me post Easterbrook's summary of the GPL (his > > "quick look" on Wallace's claim aside for a moment) once again? > > > > I seem to recall that you *agreed* that Easterbrook was indeed > > "drunken" at least regarding his ability to comprehend the GPL. > > Your recollections are rather colorful. I am rather certain that I > said no such thing. I might have differed in details with his > assessment and reasoning which is not all too surprising. I wrote: || And, BTW, according to EASTERBROOK, "the GPL propagates from user to || user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any || creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the || software or allow any successor to charge." || || Got it? You replied: | Well, I hope not. The above sounds a bit confused, or at least | sloppily worded. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid >> observer of what you call "Intellectual Property law" (there is > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law > >> actually no such thing, as there are disparate laws about the items >> grouped under this term). The problem is that he is completely unable >> to draw any reasonable conclusions from his observations: his >> predictions are consistently utterly wrong, and he blames this on >> "drunk judges" and similar excuses. > > Do you really want to me post Easterbrook's summary of the GPL (his > "quick look" on Wallace's claim aside for a moment) once again? > > I seem to recall that you *agreed* that Easterbrook was indeed > "drunken" at least regarding his ability to comprehend the GPL. Your recollections are rather colorful. I am rather certain that I said no such thing. I might have differed in details with his assessment and reasoning which is not all too surprising. The bottom line, however, seems to match pretty much what I would have expected. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
David Kastrup wrote: [...] > By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid > observer of what you call "Intellectual Property law" (there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intellectual_property_law > actually no such thing, as there are disparate laws about the items > grouped under this term). The problem is that he is completely unable > to draw any reasonable conclusions from his observations: his > predictions are consistently utterly wrong, and he blames this on > "drunk judges" and similar excuses. Do you really want to me post Easterbrook's summary of the GPL (his "quick look" on Wallace's claim aside for a moment) once again? I seem to recall that you *agreed* that Easterbrook was indeed "drunken" at least regarding his ability to comprehend the GPL. No? regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by >> faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. >> >> STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS >> >> You DO NOT come from com.1407.org >> >> Rui >> > > The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is faked to prevent GNU disciples and > SPAMMERS from overwhelming my true email address. There are so many > crackpot zealots practicing the GNU relgion that I even receive > crank phone calls from Europe in the middle of the night. Many > serious observers of Intellectual Property law like Alexander > Terekov know my true email address. Does that mean that our local trolls coordinate their ramblings in private communication? Anyway, you should try spelling your hero correctly. By the way: I agree with your assessment of Alexander being an avid observer of what you call "Intellectual Property law" (there is actually no such thing, as there are disparate laws about the items grouped under this term). The problem is that he is completely unable to draw any reasonable conclusions from his observations: his predictions are consistently utterly wrong, and he blames this on "drunk judges" and similar excuses. Nevertheless, quite a few of the quotations he digs up _are_ interesting. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS You DO NOT come from com.1407.org Rui The address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is faked to prevent GNU disciples and SPAMMERS from overwhelming my true email address. There are so many crackpot zealots practicing the GNU relgion that I even receive crank phone calls from Europe in the middle of the night. Many serious observers of Intellectual Property law like Alexander Terekov know my true email address. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by > faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. > > STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS > > You DO NOT come from com.1407.org While I agree that the original poster is rather incoherent, I am afraid that this particular complaint is nonsense. His faked from address is just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", namely a host named "com" with no specified domain. Any "1407.org" domain you might have been seeing has been added by your own software or your interpretation of its output. His posting contains nothing of the sort. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
Your credibility was ruined long ago, and is only gone even deeper by faking your email in order to get spam-bots onto my mail server. STOP FAKING YOUR FROM ADDRESS You DO NOT come from com.1407.org Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: GNU FUD
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The holding in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control > Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) unequivocally > demonstrates that a copyright license may not control source code > that implements a step in a process patent under U.S. law. You mean that this is a Supreme Court decision based solely on the Berne convention and thus forms an unequivocal standard of both national and international law? Did not think so. > The above result may not be true in non-U.S. jurisdictions but the ^ Not that it would be true to a sufficiently reliable degree in U.S. jurisdictions... > obvious deception by the vocal supporters of the Free Software > Foundation concerning the GPL3 and U.S. patents destroys any > credibility they might have when complaining about Microsoft's > hegemony. Wow. Now you are losing it. It has always been stated that the GPLv2 would already imply a patent license under U.S. law, but that it is something which needs to be made explicit for the sake of both clarity and international law. Anyway, the obvious befuddlement you have about the license destroys any credibility you might have when handing in your tax return statements. You don't see the connection? Then we are already two. > GPL supporters and not Microsoft are truly the culprits in the FUD > wars concerning patents and computer programming. Their efforts > amount to nothing more than one great SPAM conspiracy in the open > source world. Sadly, it amazing how many people like Bruce Perens > spew GPL3 nonsense concerning patents. You should wipe the foam off your mouth. You don't even manage to form complete sentences right now. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
