Our Worst Nightmare?

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote

Yet if you top post, you're too stupid to realize that you've
violated RFC 1855[1],
[...]

I'm sure the RFC's state you should have a valid reply-to address as
well.

Cheers,

Al

Al Borowski schrieb:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote

I'm sure the RFC's state you should have a valid reply-to address as
well.

Actually, no. There's an RFC (forgot the number) which explicitely
recommends to add the fake domain .invalid when posting to Usenet.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan wrote:
Al Borowski schrieb:

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote

I'm sure the RFC's state you should have a valid reply-to address as
well.

Actually, no. There's an RFC (forgot the number) which explicitely
recommends to add the fake domain .invalid when posting to Usenet.

You're right. There is. RFC 2606. It also handles testing for
reverse top level DNS names.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFopocyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnMdAJ9ttgWUNMp/00UhaNbzNnHcbUC7vwCbBpF8
ddxU1vz6dH8TdlqdSxmfOEc=
=OJUV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

You're right. There is. RFC 2606. It also handles testing for
reverse top level DNS names.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFopocyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnMdAJ9ttgWUNMp/00UhaNbzNnHcbUC7vwCbBpF8
ddxU1vz6dH8TdlqdSxmfOEc=
=OJUV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Is there an RFC for 1980's style sigs that are 10 times as long as the
post? G

B A R R Y schrieb:

Is there an RFC for 1980's style sigs that are 10 times as long as the
post? G

:-)))

This is by far the best joke I've read in this group. Thanks.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefan wrote:
B A R R Y schrieb:

Is there an RFC for 1980's style sigs that are 10 times as long as the
post? G

:-)))

This is by far the best joke I've read in this group. Thanks.

It would be longer, but I used up my last case of Aqua Net 3
days ago.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFotdpyBkZmuMZ8L8RAtibAKDLjOprfUE8b25dPQNigZ diy+l6/wCguSA8
HGJq0heLGF1jf0Oas/36fZY=
=lVmd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:13:43 +0100, Stefan
wrote:

Some groups want top, some want bottom, I prefer interspersed except
when top of bottom is more appropriate.

B A R R Y schrieb:

Is there an RFC for 1980's style sigs that are 10 times as long as the
post? G

:-)))

This is by far the best joke I've read in this group. Thanks.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com