🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45fdho$o9o@giga.bga.com>, David Smith <bladex@bga.com> wrote:
>I narrowed the complaint down to that Fletcher was (1) blocking access to 
>the gateway because of domainism and (2) not notifying AOLers trying to 
>use the service that he was doing this.  Messages that they sent simply 
>never appeared.
>
>Is your response to this still tough roogies?

Pretty much, yeah.

If you don't like it, don't use it.  It truly is that simple.

The only thing Fletcher owes you or me is not to damage the net through
the gateway via spews and spams and such.  That, fortunately, is not
a problem.  In fact, this whole issue stems from Fletcher acting on
the massive abuse and torment heaped on the gateway by AOL.COM users.

I'd be disposed to be sympathetic to the specific problem you raise
if it wasn't done through such a whiny, obnoxious spam.  In fact, if
the AOL luser had directed that specific request to Fletcher *politely*,
she might have gotten satisfaction.  (My reference point is many moons
ago, Fletcher modified the way cs.utexas.edu produces bounces messages
in response to a comment I made via *polite* *private* email.)
-- 
Chip Rosenthal              Ban excessive reposts: /^X-Mailer: Mozilla/h:j
Unicom Systems Development
For a good time:  http://www.unicom.com/john-hiatt/
PGP key:  http://www.unicom.com/personal/chip.html