(Um, this identifies your message as being compliant with the current
MIME standard, and thus defines the semantics of some other headers
and enables you to use facilities for extended textual data, file and
multimedia transfer in standard RFC822 messages. Refer to RFC2045-2048
for details. If you are using us-ascii text exclusively and all your
text lines are reasonably short, you can probably turn off MIME
altogether, but using MIME has some definitive advantages over sending
"untyped random 7-bit data" [or even 8-bit, at your own peril]. You
can be minimally MIME-compliant by using +only+ the Mime-Version
header but none of the Content-* headers, in which case, again, your
posting should be 7bit us-ascii with no overlong lines, which is the
default interpretation in the absence of any Content-* headers.)
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:31:13 -0400, Doug Herbert
<dherbert@tradskin.org> wrote:
> 3) Every country in the world is covered by laws guaranteeing
> freedom of speech to it's citizens (as long as the government
(Ha, try that in China. And you mean its, without an apostrophe [or
its'].)
<ring> Uh, where am I? Yeah, here:
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 14:52:38 -0400, flaps@dgp.toronto.edu
(Alan J Rosenthal) wrote:
> First of all, I should say, as I should have said last time, that
> if the *.answers moderators really want to do this and think it
> will save them moderation/flame-fighting effort, I think we should
> accede; we, and all of usenet, do owe them some gratitude for their
> good works.
Absolutely. But I also agree that disclaimer.cut&paste() is probably
not an ideal method for dealing with the kooks. In the scenario where
a kook harasses the *.answers moderators (trying to get their Internet
access revoked or what not) the simple and straightforward solution
should be to point them to the existing documentation for what it
takes to get a posting approved. If the documentation is not good
enough, add another FAQ :-)
> The *.answers moderators may feel, upon receiving a draft faq, that
> this particular kind of form-not-content-approval disclaimer is
> appropriate because of that particular file, and they should ask
> for it. I don't think that they likely had that reaction to the
I guess ideally, you could put David's initial plea into the approval
guidelines more or less verbatim. Those who feel for one reason or
another that adding a disclaimer would be a good idea are probably
numerous enough to build the critical mass which David is looking for,
and some will probably put it in as a gesture if the wording in the
guidelines requests that.
Meanwhile, rest assured that somebody out there is Designing a Better
Idiot (tm) this very moment.
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:03:45 -0300 (ADT), Martin Leese - OMG
<mleese@omg.unb.ca> wrote:
>>> Being easy doesn't make anything right. Being hard doesn't make
>>> anything wrong.
>>> David's solution is an easy way out for him and it's wrong.
> Yes, it is an easy way out for David and, as he is a voluteer, why
> shouldn't we help to make his job easier? What David wants is only
> wrong in your opinion; in my opinion what he wants is perfectly
> reasonable.
Seconded, with a smack over the head to whoever wrote the >>> part.
(Sorry, attributions messed up in the original.)
/* era */
And to whoever asked about the alt.null FAQ: Yes, you can definitely
get *.answers approval for +any+ material which adheres to the
*.answers guidelines. You cannot count on +any+ content screening by
the moderators, nor more than hope that "erroneous" FAQs will be
refuted by responsible volunteers.
-- .obBotBait: It shouldn't even matter whether <http://www.iki.fi/era/> I am a resident of the state of Washington. <http://members.xoom.com/procmail/> * Sign the European spam petition! <http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/en/> *
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997
All rights reserved