Now that I maintain the threading this will be barried inside it. It
really should be a new post, but to satisfy you....

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Steve M. Fabac, Jr. wrote:
> > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > On 5 Mar, 22:56, Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerb...@zenez.com> wrote:
> > > > After RFC 821 was mutilated by RFC 1123 email could be forged.
> > > > Forwarding was broken by RFC 1123 5.3.6(a) about 19 years ago.
> > >
> > > This is the wrong newsgroup for this topic, op on ove to the network
> > > abuse discussion groups for this topic.
> >
> > I take offense at your chastising Boyd for this post. I believe that it
> > was in response to my original post looking for help in resolving the
> > originating IP address's ISP and abuse@ values automatically in
> > the large number of bounced spam I have been receiving to my domain.

I was offended, but I considered the source. It was clear that a new
topic was needed, to clarify the discussion. It is not very valuable to
have to do a body search to get the information. Usenet really has
changed. We now see topic driffting and no change of subject. Many news
servers only keep things for 2 weeks. These marathon threads get articles
dropped and when you read they have not substance. I started a new thread
to clarify what was going on. The topic needed to be changed. It was
sparked from the discussion.

The problem is this now is driffting and has absolutly to do with the
thread. See below. Topic has nothing to do with the subject.

> When replying to someone else's post, I try to do at least one of these
> three things:
>
> * Use 'reply' rather than 'new message' so that my posting contains an
> NNTP "reference" header that points to the previous posting.

But with threading and the topic is no longer applicable. It gets barried
inside of a thread with no reference to the subject. A new thread should
start so that the discussion is about the subject.

> * Use the prefix "Re:" in the subject and preferably some clue that will
> help folk locate the original thread.

Yes as long as the discussion is about the orignal thread.

> * In the body of the message, make some mention, no matter how vague, of
> the thread to which my message relates.

That is often a good practice, but when time is short we do not always
follow good practice.

> I expect that when I do none of the above, and discuss something
> superficially unrelated to the newsgroup in which I post, some readers
> may understandably be puzzled.

But the tread had gone beyond the original subject. I started with a
clear subject that when referenced to the newsgroup... Assumtions.

1. This has something to do with SCO OS's or products. So therefore what
in the SCO OS needed to be explained.

(A) Sending email.

2. Assumption something in SCO that may be broken.

(A) SMTP.


So topic is choosen on SMTP being broken on SCO and that I should give
inforation on about how long. But being that what I am talking about is
also an issue with other OS, for this discussion it is not applicable. I
want to let people know that for SCO SMTP was broken about 19 years ago.
If I want to talk about abuse on a larger scale yes I would go to those
news groups, but given the SCO is the issue I do it here.

Given the source that started this drifft, has a bone to pick with SCO and
prefers to divert the subject. I will not go on more.


--
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047