Re: test post



Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner wrote:

matt_left_coast <not@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That assumes the poster HAS ACCESS to test groups. The server I post from
has no test groups.

The term for that would be "broken".

How so, TECHNICALLY? What is "broken"?

Test groups are venerable and
well-established.

So? I am supposed to give up my freedome for what you consider "venerable
and well-established."?

Ignoring common practice because you can't or won't
or are too lazy or cheap or stupid to get a decent newsfeed does not
make you correct.

Nor does name calling make you correct. If you can give a legitimate
technical reason (and "Test groups are venerable and well-established" is
not a legitimate technical reason) that my system is broken, then do so.

It makes you a jackass.

Oh, I see, you want to try to intimidate me, by into giving up the freedom
I have of configuring my system the way that best meets my needs, the needs
of my family and the needs of my business without giving any real technical
reason.






There is also no RFC that requires a poster to post test
messages to "test" groups.

There's no rulebook for a lot of things in life.

That is correct, so why are you so emphatic about telling me how to run MINE
and the systems *I* have? I have the FREEDOM to run my systems the way I
see fit within the standards spelled out in the RFCs. IF TEST MESSAGES FROM
MY SYSTEM BECOME A PROBLEM (as off yet, I can not see where anyone is
bitching about test messsages coming from my system) I will take measures
to deal with the situation. Till then, you can just buzz off. I will enjoy
the FREEDOM OSS gives me and RUN MY SYSTEM THE WAY I SEE FIT.

Again, ignoring
netiquette and then yelling

If people would learn to LISTEN the fist go round, I would not need to yell.

about how there's no law about it does not
make you look any more correct.

And what makes YOU correct? A thing called "netiquette"? If you take a look
at the document I responded to, you would find that it is a lecture on
"netiquette" that is deceptively labled as a FAQ. How is deceptively
labeling a post good "netiquette"? But the fact of the matter is,
netiquette DOES NOT DETERMIN HOW I CONFIGURE MY SERVER ONLY POSTING 'TEST'
MESSAGES. If you can point out how my system had been sending out a
disturbing number of "test" posts to non-test groups, then, please do so.






.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: test post
    ... from has no test groups. ... It's all about FREEDOM. ... The problem is, it's not about your personal server, but how any official servers should be configured! ... Stop this nonsense and accept that your news-server (leafnode?) is private, ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: test sory
    ... messages to test groups, there simply no REQUIREMENT. ... The simple FACT is it is only an issue of ETIQUITE and all your whining does ... the word you are after is NETIQUETTE. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: test post
    ... from has no test groups. ... you've been whining about this crap for ... It's all about FREEDOM. ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: posting test
    ... server carries test groups, please post future test groups there. ... breach of netiquette is a technical failure I do not know. ... Sorry, but this is a simple breach in netiquette, not a failure. ...
    (alt.linux)
  • Re: test post
    ... has no test groups. ... Ignoring common practice because you can't or won't ... netiquette and then yelling about how there's no law about it does not ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)