Dear all,
Contrary to what Joe Brewoo said in his last e-mail, the Conduit thing is dragging
on. For good reason, because there still are some murky issues here. But before I
detail my suggestions about how we can solve this once and for all, I would like to
plead with all of you to refrain from making any allegations against Mr. Harwell
until at such a time when he can post messages on the list. It is not fair to have
all manner of characterizations of him knowing full well that he cannot at this point
reply in his own defense.
With regard resolving the issue that won't go away, I'd like to say "Thanks" to Joe
and Peter Munoz for forwarding the results of their query about Mr. Harwell's
subscription. However, I believe the information they forwarded is incomplete.
Here's a snippet from what Joe sent to the list:
> q aam for *condui*@*
> Subscription options for Nathaniel Harwell <[log in to unmask]>, list AAM:
> MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received
> FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers
> REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings
> NOACK No acknowledgement of successfully processed postings
>
> Subscription date: 17 Jan 1998
>
> One matching entry found.
>
> q aam for *info*@*
>
> Subscription options for Nathaniel Harwell <[log in to unmask]>, list AAM:
>
> MAIL You are sent individual postings as they are received
> FULLHDR Full (normal) mail headers
> REPRO You receive a copy of your own postings
> NOACK No acknowledgement of successfully processed postings
>
Please note that none of the above query results specifically say that either one or
both of Mr. Harwell's addresses CAN post to the AAM list. Even though the REPRO and
NOACK settings imply that the person has posting privileges, I don't think they are
sufficient to determine whether or not a subscriber has been barred from sending
postings to the list. The best way to determine the full status of Mr. Harwell's
subscription is to use the Web-based list management interface available via the St.
Johns Univ. Maelstrom site: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/
Click on the "Owners list management screen", and you'll then be prompted for your
e-mail address and password. If you don't have a password, you can create one, and
confirm it, using instructions that will be e-mailed you. After that, it is a simple
matter going to the list management page, and querying an e-mail address from the
list of subscribers. You'll get a FULL listing of the subscribers subscription
status, organized under the headings "Subscription type", "Mail header style",
"Acknowledgements", and "Miscellaneous."
Of particular interest in Mr. Harwell's case would be the last option under
"Miscellaneous", i.e. the one that says "User may not post to list." If this box is
not checked, then (and only then) can we say that Mr. Harwell has no case. If it is
checked, then it should be unchecked {if that is, the list managers(s) really want to
restore his posting privileges}. And please don't forget to press the "Update"
button right below the "User may not post to list" check box if you want your changes
to take effect.
I suggest that a list manager carry out the above exercise and tell us whether or not
the "User may post to list" boxes were checked for each of Mr. Harwell's addresses.
And if either or both of them had the box checked, we need to know who did so, and
why. Finally, we need to know when Mr. Harwell's posting privileges have been
restored, if they indeed were revoked. As many people have pointed out here, I'd
like to say that I insist that we get to the bottom of this because it would be the
just thing to do. So let's get this over with as soon as possible, and move on.
Thanks again for your indulgence, and best wishes.
Katim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, visit:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/aam.html
AAM Website: http://www.danenet.wicip.org/aam
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
