Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

I suspect it depends on who had Swen and one's e-mail address in an OE
address list. Initially most of mine were supposedly sent from
Microsoft. For the last couple of weeks most are supposedly from
Italy, France and the southern hemisphere. Maybe 10% have been
supposedly from UK. The flow is slowly decreasing. I am down to around
a hundred a day now. I haven't actually received these viruses for a
month now. I get a short message, including the supposed poster, from
my ISP each time it intercepts a virus.

The latest bots scan kept mail *AND* news in Outpuke and Outpuke Depress
for e-mail addresses, and some software used by spammers generates
likely addresses and then fires a batch like buckshot at an ISP.

Their reasoning (assuming they are capable of it) really puzzle me: they
dot their subject lines with ^ = & ? etc to defeat killfiles - anyone
who uses a killfile and receiving one is hardly going to read it.......

I just KF'd *=* (where * is any character or no character) and reduced
the number of filters needed at a stroke. I can't think that I'll get
many genuine e-mails with the equals sign in.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:54:17 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

Then my ISP is a criminal. He is interfering with the spam which is
intended for me. I asked him to do so, but I am as certain as I can be that
he did not ask the spammers for their permission to interfere on my behalf.
He has succeeded in reducing the spam I receive in my inbox to between 1 and
2% of what it used to be. He has also succeded in removing Swen-like
attacks to zero.

Swen is different: you don't have to open the interpersonal
correspondence to kill it.

Intercepting and scanning personal mail is a criminal offence unless the
recipient is your employee and usimg your system to receive his/her
mail.

Yes, so you insist saying. BT are breaking the law on a vast scale
then.


This was enacted before spam became a real problem, but the law applies
in principle.

It would be up to the DPP to initiate proceedings on a complaint.
Probably, with regard to spam, in the admittedly unlikely event of it
going to court the beaks would find in favour of your ISP.

Your understanding of Spam law is utterly wrong, but don't let that
upset you.

You still confuse the law on telephone tapping and mail interception
without the recipients knowledge, with an ISP offering a service at
the request of the recipient.


Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

Zetnet website doesn't offer any antivirus service any idea why?

Can you explain how Zetnet tags Spam e-mail for somebody I know?
Another Zetnet perhaps?
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:56:11 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

And even more amazing if they really did it in a couple of hours.

No. Just knowing what to do and how to do it.

I remain a doubting Thomas, but let it be.

The man himself (a director of Zetnet) comes and chats in the (Zet)newsgroups.

He said he'd try, he said what he was going to do, and shortly
afterwards - bo more worms.

There was at least one newsgroups that explained how. Is it
conceivable that he subscribes to it?
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:02:38 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

and I told you, that you are talking ********.

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Please don't put off other people using a facility, that is readily
available from most good ISPs in UK.

It isn't the subscriber who is committing the act. How can that put
anyone off?

Take it up on uk.net.news.config

And they will do what? Overrule Parliament?

No, UK Usenet committee members will tell you just how wrong you are.

I consulted them when you first trotted out your idea of the law on
Spam. Franz has seen the answer.


/snip/

It's not the only good ISP in the world.

No, but it compares very favourably with any other I've come across,
which is why I've stayed with them for more than seven years.

And, be it said, never found the need to subscribe to any other.

but then you believe it's illegal to have your Spam identified for you
by your server.

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?


(But it's not a bad idea, and Andy could write a simple filter to kill
anything so identified.

A monkey could write such a filter. It's identifying spam that is the
clever part.



Thanks for that....)


don't mention it.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:11:38 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

I suspect it depends on who had Swen and one's e-mail address in an OE
address list. Initially most of mine were supposedly sent from
Microsoft. For the last couple of weeks most are supposedly from
Italy, France and the southern hemisphere. Maybe 10% have been
supposedly from UK. The flow is slowly decreasing. I am down to around
a hundred a day now. I haven't actually received these viruses for a
month now. I get a short message, including the supposed poster, from
my ISP each time it intercepts a virus.

The latest bots scan kept mail *AND* news in Outpuke and Outpuke Depress
for e-mail addresses, and some software used by spammers generates
likely addresses and then fires a batch like buckshot at an ISP.

Their reasoning (assuming they are capable of it) really puzzle me: they
dot their subject lines with ^ = & ? etc to defeat killfiles - anyone
who uses a killfile and receiving one is hardly going to read it.......

I just KF'd *=* (where * is any character or no character) and reduced
the number of filters needed at a stroke. I can't think that I'll get
many genuine e-mails with the equals sign in.

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

I told you befo it's a criminal act to interfere with
e-communications without the consent of both the recipient and the
sender.

Then my ISP is a criminal. He is interfering with the spam which is
intended for me. I asked him to do so, but I am as certain as I can be
that
he did not ask the spammers for their permission to interfere on my
behalf.
He has succeeded in reducing the spam I receive in my inbox to between 1
and
2% of what it used to be. He has also succeded in removing Swen-like
attacks to zero.

Swen is different: you don't have to open the interpersonal
correspondence to kill it.

Intercepting and scanning personal mail is a criminal offence unless the
recipient is your employee and usimg your system to receive his/her
mail.

This was enacted before spam became a real problem, but the law applies
in principle.

It would be up to the DPP to initiate proceedings on a complaint.
Probably, with regard to spam, in the admittedly unlikely event of it
going to court the beaks would find in favour of your ISP.

Ah, I am so glad my ISP would not be sent to jail.
In the meantime, he is quite actively and successfully interfering with my
incoming mail without the consent of the senders.
He has reduced my spam from around 150 a day to around 2 or 3.

I have checked the first 1000 or so of the intercepted mail, and have not
found a solitary item which was wrongly intercepted. From now on I will
just delete it all daily in one fell swoop without looking.

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

/pedant

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:45:06 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

a very Rusty Lawyer? :-)
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:30:01 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

Thanks for helping me to discover that an OED CD made for Win95 won't
run with WinXP :-(((

--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Neither did I say which firm of solicitors Zetnet uses, or when they
were asked or - how much more data would you like?

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?

I can tell just from the headers and senders.....

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%

Unfortunately it is likely to catch say, a joke forwarded from a
newsgroup, or genuine e-mails. I did KF !!! and caught something I had
to fish out of packetsave.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

/pedant

Virus means dirt, filth.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

4th declension noun would be virii. I can't remember what viri
translates as (and I've lost my huge Latin dictionary) but it isn't the
plural of virus.

I *COULD* bother one of Zetnet's directors and ask him for a(nother)
full explanation, but he's rather busy ATM with a (presumably)
intermittent fault on one of the servers.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

/snip/

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

The spammer becomes irrelevant. (Or a hippopotamus)

HTH

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

/snip/

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some
(if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a
killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which
masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

The spammer becomes irrelevant. (Or a hippopotamus)


And the whole exercise ends up by being a big footshooting. Soon after the
first case of this kind comes to court, there will be anti-spamming
legislation. Then the spammer has really become irrelevant.

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:41 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

And I said that I wasn't arguing with you, I was telling you. Zetnet
took legal advice.

You omitted to say what they were told.

Neither did I say which firm of solicitors Zetnet uses, or when they
were asked or - how much more data would you like?

Enough to make your claim plausible.

BTW I was wrong Zetnet don't offer a spam tagging service, yet. So not
the best ISP in UK after all?
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:54 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

No. You suggested that. I never said anything about identification.

You said very clearly that an ISP was breaking the law by even looking
at the mail. How can he identify it without even looking at it?

I can tell just from the headers and senders.....

I think I told you that 4 weeks ago. I even provided you with
examples.
Incidentally to get spam that slipped through down to 2 or 3 messages
a week it took more than 300 filters with Lotus Notes and I had to
regularly add new filters.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:04:59 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

checking for an exclamation mark in the subject is good for about 40%

Unfortunately it is likely to catch say, a joke forwarded from a
newsgroup, or genuine e-mails. I did KF !!! and caught something I had
to fish out of packetsave.

It's the reason I filter Spam tagged messages into a dedicated folder.
So far at home I have not had any spuriously tagged Spam messages.
Like Franz I am considering deleting them without first putting them
in a folder.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease
virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair
of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is
indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

My knowledge of Latin is insufficient to knit a pair of socks for a flea.
My Concise Oxford dictionary is no help either,
so I will believe you. {:-))

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:11:54 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

/snip/

Just the legal costs of defending such an action could bankrupt some (if
not all) small ISPs though, which is why Zetnet for one wrote a killfile
into its software, but won't intercept it on the server.

And who on earth is going to do the suing or prosecuting? Which masochist
wants to make a laughing stock of him/herself?

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Go away and read the law you quoted very carefully!

The offence you quoted applies to unauthorised interception of mail
and phone tapping.


Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

You watch too much Inspector Morse :-)
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:13:04 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:
"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is indeed a
virus at all)

/pedant

Virus means dirt, filth.

Latin for poison actually
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

4th declension noun would be virii. I can't remember what viri
translates as (and I've lost my huge Latin dictionary) but it isn't the
plural of virus.

I *COULD* bother one of Zetnet's directors and ask him for a(nother)
full explanation,

Of what virii translates as? {:-))

but he's rather busy ATM with a (presumably)
intermittent fault on one of the servers.

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:30:01 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease
virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair
of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is
indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

Thanks for helping me to discover that an OED CD made for Win95 won't
run with WinXP :-(((

If you will let me have it at a sensible secondhand price, I will take it
off you. Payment will result ASAP *after* I have veruified that it will run
on my Windows 98. {:-))
(All on the assumption that it is an OED and not a Concise Oxford.)

Franz

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

In message
martin wrote:


[snip]

Virus means dirt, filth.

Latin for poison actually

Actually its basic meaning was a slimy liquid, eg animal sperm.
By extension, a poisonous liquid, or poison.
Further, an offensive odour or stench.
And finally, a sharp saline taste.
--
Ian Wolfe.
Linlithgow. Birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Blessed are the peacemakers.

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

And the whole exercise ends up by being a big footshooting. Soon after the
first case of this kind comes to court, there will be anti-spamming
legislation. Then the spammer has really become irrelevant.

Antispam legislation has already been enacted and comes into force this
year, on or about the 10th of December.

However - it might not be easy to enforce............

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

BTW I was wrong Zetnet don't offer a spam tagging service, yet. So not
the best ISP in UK after all?

And that is your main criterion for a good ISP? If you wanted to speak
to one of your ISP's directors, could you just phone and expect to speak
to him? Do any of your deirctors ever appear on IRC? If you voice a
criticism in the host newsgroups (if you have any?) would you expect an
answer in the NG from the CEO? Could you expect to have the owner phone
you for an opinion on methods of payment?

Didn't think so.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Go away and read the law you quoted very carefully!

The offence you quoted applies to unauthorised interception of mail
and phone tapping.

And of course, e-mail is not covered by this?


Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

You watch too much Inspector Morse :-)

I haven't got a haunted fishtank. I prefer RL.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

I can tell just from the headers and senders.....

I think I told you that 4 weeks ago. I even provided you with
examples.
Incidentally to get spam that slipped through down to 2 or 3 messages
a week it took more than 300 filters with Lotus Notes and I had to
regularly add new filters.

Bloody hell! You think that was news? I've been on the net just about as
long as e-spam has been around. I've had one in my mailbox this week. I
haven't counted the filters, but *@msn.* would kill around a quarter of
them.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from martin contains these words:

Virus means dirt, filth.

Latin for poison actually

And that. If you look in a good Latin dictionary you'll find most nouns
cover a very wide area. FYI it also means 'slime'.

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these words:

I *COULD* bother one of Zetnet's directors and ask him for a(nother)
full explanation,

Of what virii translates as? {:-))

Yes. He sometimes chips in to a thread in a Zetgroup and gives someone a
lecture on the word.......

--
Rusty Hinge
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

The message
from Ian Wolfe contains these words:


Actually its basic meaning was a slimy liquid, eg animal sperm.
By extension, a poisonous liquid, or poison.
Further, an offensive odour or stench.
And finally, a sharp saline taste.

How funny; I was just thinking "Where's Ian Wolfe when we need him"
and up you popped.

Procul, o procul estes, profani.

Janet

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

In message
Janet Baraclough wrote:

The message
from Ian Wolfe contains these words:


Actually its basic meaning was a slimy liquid, eg animal sperm.
By extension, a poisonous liquid, or poison.
Further, an offensive odour or stench.
And finally, a sharp saline taste.

How funny; I was just thinking "Where's Ian Wolfe when we need him"
and up you popped.

Procul, o procul estes, profani.

Wonderful response, but perhaps "este".

--
Ian Wolfe.
Linlithgow. Birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Blessed are the peacemakers.

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:45:40 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

BTW I was wrong Zetnet don't offer a spam tagging service, yet. So not
the best ISP in UK after all?

And that is your main criterion for a good ISP?

Please don't jump to conclusions. I did not give any criteria for a
good ISP.

If you wanted to speak
to one of your ISP's directors, could you just phone and expect to speak
to him?

Why should I? I have never had to phone my ISP.
The director is head of French Telecom. I would expect him to have
delegated handling complaints to somebody a bit more junior.

Do any of your deirctors ever appear on IRC?

I doubt if he knows what IRC is. Why should he appear on IRC?

If you voice a
criticism in the host newsgroups (if you have any?)

I haven't, I have no complaints.

would you expect an
answer in the NG from the CEO?

N/A see above.

Could you expect to have the owner phone
you for an opinion on methods of payment?

No and if he did I would tell him to sod off.
Telephones are not a suitable media for private money discussions.
If the CEO does things like this WTF is running the company?


Didn't think so.

You imply that Zetnet users criticise the service and that the CEO
spends time defending it.

I changed ISP's 4 times before I settled with Wanadoo.
I have been with Wanadoo for 3 years.

Wanadoo provides everything I expect of an ISP and I am completely
happy with the service they provide.

If you want to continue this discussion take it to uk.net , which is
the correct group for the topic.

FU set to uk.net
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:50:45 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

It only needs a disaffected spammer to report that mail is being deleted
by a named ISP, and the police *MUST* investigate. How thoroughly they
do so is another matter. Remember, this is a criminal matter, not a
civil one.

Go away and read the law you quoted very carefully!

The offence you quoted applies to unauthorised interception of mail
and phone tapping.

And of course, e-mail is not covered by this?


let's try again
a) an anonymous sender sends spam to me
b) I AUTHORISE my ISP to tag it

of course it's not covered by it.



Then, if the police do investigate, and are of the opinion that there is
a pima facie case, they must pass the matter to the DPP.

You watch too much Inspector Morse :-)

I haven't got a haunted fishtank. I prefer RL.

almost back on topic there :-)
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:52:23 GMT, Ian Wolfe
wrote:

In message
martin wrote:


[snip]

Virus means dirt, filth.

Latin for poison actually

Actually its basic meaning was a slimy liquid, eg animal sperm.
By extension, a poisonous liquid, or poison.
Further, an offensive odour or stench.
And finally, a sharp saline taste.

I was quoting Oxford Dictionary of Current English.
I forgot most of the Latin I learnt 50 years ago.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:52:01 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

Virus means dirt, filth.

Latin for poison actually

And that. If you look in a good Latin dictionary you'll find most nouns
cover a very wide area. FYI it also means 'slime'.

Take it up with the compilers of OED.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:45:00 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Kay Easton contains these words:

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

4th declension noun would be virii. I can't remember what viri
translates as (and I've lost my huge Latin dictionary) but it isn't the
plural of virus.

I *COULD* bother one of Zetnet's directors and ask him for a(nother)
full explanation,

Of what virii translates as? {:-))

but he's rather busy ATM with a (presumably)
intermittent fault on one of the servers.

You don't get faults on *real* ISP servers :-)

.... and the idea of the director fixing one is laughable.
--
Martin

Remind me why I wanted rain?
 

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:45:44 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:30:01 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote:

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Franz Heymann" contains these
words:

My mistake. I was thinking of both virii and spammed email.

pedant

Virus is a collective noun.

One solitary influenza virus may be inspected under the electron
microscope.microscope.
Granted, I don't know whether an influenza and a legionnaire'd disease
virus
lying side by side should be referred to as a pair of viruses or a pair
of
virii. (On the assumption that the legionnaire's disease thingy is
indeed a
virus at all)

It wouldn't be virii anyway, would it? That'd be the plural of virius.

Thanks for helping me to discover that an OED CD made for Win95 won't
run with WinXP :-(((

If you will let me have it at a sensible secondhand price, I will take it
off you. Payment will result ASAP *after* I have veruified that it will run
on my Windows 98. {:-))
(All on the assumption that it is an OED and not a Concise Oxford.)

Send me an address and it's yours free, but be quick as we leave for
UK and Yorkshire tomorrow evening.

--
Martin