At 12:42 AM 11/8/99 , you wrote:
Who was that southern bell you crashed the GAC meeting with? And I
understand the Irish delegate allowed you to speak - what happened there?
It's a wonderful story with a happy ending.
The three activist lawyers in LA - Nader's
Theresa Amato, Cleve Thornton
I just conducted a few tests on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which involved
sending the list forged header messages from all participants.
It looks like only messages elisabeth approves get posted. Go figure.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Well - it looks like the lawyers at the berkman center can post to the ga
list without censorship.
I wonder who else has this priviledge.
--
J. Baptista Planet Communications Computing Facility
Voice/Fax (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033
So it looks like we have to start a weight and strength training program in
order to have the *presence* required to be not thrown out of GAC meetings?
With all these e-mails, at least my fingers are in great shape. Time for the
rest of the upper-body. It sounds like you had some fun there,
Notwithstanding the commercial applications for the new extended 63
character domain name, spare a thought for the welsh village that
previously could not register their own village domain name. However, there
is good news, they now claim possibly the longest .com name in history!
On 8 November 1999, Mark Henderson-Thynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Notwithstanding the commercial applications for the new extended 63
character domain name, spare a thought for the welsh village that
previously could not register their own village domain name. However, there
is good
At 08:02 AM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
Well, H. Ross Perot had it all wrong. That great "sucking sound"
you hear is not U. S. jobs heading for Mexico because of NAFTA,
but rather GAC in the person of Paul Twomey workin' on the Congress
critter.
Bill Lovell
At 12:42 AM 11/8/99 , you wrote:
Who
... enabling Internet Domain Name Registrations of up to 63
characters! This is 37 characters more than Network Solutions who
can only
currently register domain names up to 22 characters.
I must say that this is a bit of oddness - A "Domain Name" is composed
of a sequence of "labels"
Joe and all,
Yes it seems to be being censored for reasons I have yet to see an
announcement on to date. One has to wonder why? Is the DNSO
and ICANN afraid of something perhaps?
One also has to wonder why the NTIA/DOC has not exercised it's
authority under the principals of the white
Hi Kent,
Your version of history differs greatly
from my version. Rather than highlight
your inaccuracies, again and again, over
and over, I'll just wait for a definitive
ruling in a court of law.
[Anyone who's disappointed, can simply
read the previous versions of that debate
in one of the
What's really interesting is how Elizabeth is not that much on the ball.
It looks like she's manually posting what she approves. I wasted almost 2
hours before I forged the message using the cyber-lawyers header. She has
that filter wide open - so she obviously does not check the queue on a
Joe and all,
Yes I have notice this as well. It appears that Elizabeth does not even
read here E-Mail very often either, as I amongst at least 2 others have posted
concerns regarding the DNSO GA list problems. Hell of a way to run
a railroad, eh?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's really
I am pleased to announce the BIND 1999 Survey has been published and
released as a historical document. Limited public access will be provided
in the near future. An announcement will be made here in ifwp, and the dp
lists.
The bind survey went well. It was distributed last weekend prior to
Looks like Elizabeth is silently licking her wounds and pressing the
almighty delete key. Once again I have been removed as a member of the
list.
What a disgrace. This is better then XMas and santa porn mags. For shame
- for shame - for shame.
Regards
Joe Baptista
-- Forwarded
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on this point.
On 08-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well - it looks like the lawyers at the berkman center can post to the ga
list without censorship.
I
You just don't get it - do you? By the way kudos on the end of
dnspolicy.com. Get a job ;-)
Regards
Joe
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on
Look at this ga sillyness. Our DNSO listadmin deletes me by putting a #
before my name. I don't think that's the proper way to block someone out
of a list .. this will cause mailer errors - NO? a mai list is not a
shell program - Shame.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"matt
Darrell and all,
To my knowledge what Pauls is suggesting or seemingly suggesting
is categorically untrue. I have spoken to both Righard and Joe on the phone
and their voice prints do not match. Given that this is an expectable legal
method of determining identification or distinction
Lizy seems bent on censoring others too .. look who else has been hit.
#"Addr.com Web Hosting" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#Erick Iriarte [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#"Victor Ciza" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
shame on the ga listadmin.
No wonder she wants to be paid. Alot of work censoring a list.
--
William and all,
Given your past personal attacks towards Joe, this comment should
come as no surprise to anyone.
William X. Walsh wrote:
Looks to me like someone isn't too scared or to weak to actually take action to
stop list disruption. Kudos to the DNSO Secretariat on this point.
Joe and all,
I believe that William Walsh has a job of sorts. It is doing individual
tax returns as I recall...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You just don't get it - do you? By the way kudos on the end of
dnspolicy.com. Get a job ;-)
Regards
Joe
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL list. Since they
seemed to hop IPs for a while, within the same /24, the enter /24 they were in
ended up being
On 08-Nov-99 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL list. Since they
seemed to hop IPs for a while, within the same /24, the
Joe, Becky and all,
As Joe has already pointed out he and I will add others that are
members
of the DNSO GAL list are still unable to post to the DNSO GA list.
Several of these, of which I an CC'ed this post to, have been unable
to post to the DNSO GA list for over two months now, despite
# [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Look - lizy did it again. I'll have to subscribe using a phoney email
account. For shame ;-)
.. and maybe post using ficticious headers ... oh the shame.
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
At 05:39 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Just an FYI for those who are uninformed. PCCF effectively spammed all of
these people, and were subsequently added Paul Vixie's RBL
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Richard and all,
Well Richard, William is now claiming that you and Joe are one in the
same person online anyway. Interesting Eh? I guess he forgot to take
his medication again...
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
At 05:39
Patrick and all,
He is? Whom might that be?
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
I am hosted by several
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
On 09-Nov-99 Joe Baptista wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Richard and all,
Well Richard, William is now claiming that you and Joe are one in the
same person online anyway. Interesting Eh? I guess he forgot to take
At 04:12 PM 11/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
No, I don't "host" it. I provice secondary
Joe and all,
Yes indeed it is sad. It is somewhat surreal as well when someone sees,
goblins around every corner. But that seems to be William's preferred
territory unfortunately.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Richard and all,
Well Richard,
William and all,
Uh-Huh, sure William. I seem to remember YOU specifically making these
claims regarding several others on more than one occasion, including
Joe. Nice attempt, although weak at spinning...
William X. Walsh wrote:
On 09-Nov-99 Joe Baptista wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff
At 09:12 PM 11/8/99 -0500, you wrote:
At 04:12 PM 11/8/99 -0800, you wrote:
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
it weasn't spam. I have the results of the survey. They are interesting.
It certainly was. Perhaps you should mention that you host the spammer in
question Richard.
No, I
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Mark Jeftovic wrote:
It's an the equivalent of an orbs relay test for nameservers.If it was
anybody else doing it it might even be construed as productive. This
isn't the case as Baptista has an acute credibility deficiency. This is
probably a result of his own antics,
Mark and all,
Thank you Mark for your frankness and straight forward reply here.
A refreshing change, to be sure. And it is good that you seem t also
have indicated contrary to William's contention that Joe and Richard
are one in the same person. Of course more reasonable people had
likely
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Jeff Williams wrote:
Mark and all,
Thank you Mark for your frankness and straight forward reply here.
A refreshing change, to be sure. And it is good that you seem t also
have indicated contrary to William's contention that Joe and Richard
are one in the same
Joe and all,
Indeed it is a shame that some of William Walsh's ilk should
continue his stampede to pre-justice as he does so often in
ways such as this one. His false aspersions are indeed troublesome
and uncalled for. But I suppose it is cross that we all must bare.
I feel sorry for both
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
Oh this is rich! Sorry, Joe, actually I got involved in this process because
no one else in the group I was with at the time wanted to. Then once I was
involved, even though I no longer had a personal or financial stake in it any
longer, I was
40 matches
Mail list logo
