Jim, I am sorry to see you raised the same issue the fourth time. I thought we already cleared any and all misunderstandings.
>> Publishing email addresses looks like a cheap way to silence >> someone in the reflector: the spammers do the dirty work for free. > I read this as an inappropriate, public and undeserved attack It does not do any good, if you take a sentence out of context and attributes it unintended meanings. You force me to explain it the fourth time: this sentence describes the danger of publishing email addresses on the reflector. I did NOT say any of the following: - Someone did it intentionally - It was an attempt to silence me - It has happened You have seen my style of writing; I always say bluntly what I mean. You, and every regular reader knows, that I don't mean what is not written. That particular paragraph starts with the request of removal email addresses and ended with the consequences of not doing it. The two sentences in between give the reasons. You just read in something, which is not in the text. > anyone using this email reflector to > publicly besmirch the reputation of any other member of this > group will not be tolerated. I have explained publicly already three times what I meant, but you still bring it up. What is your purpose? The sentence could be ambiguous or unclear, but it can hardly be a base of attacking someone (me), who learned English as a third language in his late forties. Dou you think attacking me with an out of context sentence does any good to my reputation, and it is just and fair? > This reflector makes a reasonable attempt to blind email addresses. > many IEEE working groups use this service, it seems naïve > to think they will make these changes just for us. I have seen no attempt at all. All quoted email headers contain the email addresses of the original senders and receivers. An email reflector should blind them. You seem to disagree. Do you say it is OK to publish email addresses this way, or do you say it is wrong, but IEEE will not listen? At least we could publish a warning, that quoted email headers will be shown unchanged in the reflector, and so we have to manually remove them. Earlier I did not look at the archive, I always replied to the last received emails. It was a shock to me, when Serge brought this problem to daylight, especially, because bulletin board software does this email blinding for years. > In conclusion, I would suggest that people that agree with your > issues help explain this to the rest of the members... > Landon has helped explain your email with a > positive outcome. It is helpful for making the P1619 standard better, but I see no connection to the email blinding issue at hand. > Because of the communications that I have received on this subject > stating that they felt your email was a personal attack on Shai I > have sent this email to the entire list and to the archive. If you > want to continue this discussion, take it off the reflector and > continue the discussion with Jack, Curtis (P1619 sponsors) as well as > Serge and myself. I disagree with your proposal. You mounted a public attack on me, based on an out of context citation from my email, after I explained publicly several times what it meant. It affects my reputation. Nevertheless, if the majority of the members of the WG think, this does not belong to the reflector, I have to obey. (That is, a perceived attack on one member's reputation is a public matter, but an actual attack on another member's reputation is private). So far it was only your request. Laszlo > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: P1619: Errors happen > From: james hughes > Date: Tue, May 30, 2006 4:06 am > > I am truly saddened by this event on many levels. > > I want to reiterate that anyone using this email reflector to > publicly besmirch the reputation of any other member of this group > will not be tolerated. > > On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Publishing email addresses looks like a cheap way to silence > > someone in the reflector: the spammers do the dirty work for free. > > I read this as an inappropriate, public and undeserved attack on > Shai's (and indirectly IBM's) reputation. I personally find Shai as > an honest hard working person that is going out of his way to help > with this process. If, for a minute, you think that Shai, for some > unknown reason is an adversary, I suggest there are better means of > being effective than public accusations like this. > > > Could you please, once again, let someone edit the archived emails > > in the reflector? > > I do not think I should. If you really want me to recommend that IEEE > make one last deletion, I will consider this one last time. Please > reply off this list. > > > Would it be possible to install a filter, which automatically > > blinds email addresses in messages posted to the reflector? > > This reflector makes a reasonable attempt to blind email addresses. > If this is not adequate, I suggest you get and use an throw away > email address in case these things happen again. All of my employers > for the last 25 years have offered such email addresses. Since -many > IEEE working groups use this service, it seems naive to think they > will make these changes just for us. > > > In conclusion, I would suggest that people that agree with your > issues help explain this to the rest of the members. Eric Hibbard has > graciously acted to shepherd for all the issues so that they get > resolved. Recently, Landon has helped explain your email with a > positive outcome. I am looking forward to following that process. > > Because of the communications that I have received on this subject > stating that they felt your email was a personal attack on Shai I > have sent this email to the entire list and to the archive. If you > want to continue this discussion, take it off the reflector and > continue the discussion with Jack, Curtis (P1619 sponsors) as well as > Serge and myself. > > Jim
