In article , Galen wrote: :In news:dm07lp$f47$ snipped-for-privacy@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca, :Walter Roberson had this to say:
:> You don't seem to have replied to my point about Netscape Messenger, :> a browser with a built-in newsreader.
:I took the current Netscape for a spin. I don't know where your finding that :option. A search of the Netscape help site (oddly their help's online) :didn't reveal any such options and using the email settings didn't enable :news. This is version 8 that I am using.
Netscape 4. See
formatting link
:In all fairness I can, on the other :hand, use newsgroups in Opera so your point basically remains the same :though I'm not entirely sure what it is?
It's a browser, is it not? And "the domain" involved (if one can isolate it down to one single "domain" for the process) is not owned by microsoft. Under your correct-in-every-way signature, that access would not be allowed.
:In Opera, for example, we are still :pointed to an NNTP server, not taking the content from it's original format :and changing it to another language, not making any pretense of the source :of information being at a site, not charging access to it by itself (and I :do consider the space on my monitor being taken up by ads as a form of :payment as would be submission of personal information for permission to :post, etc), and would not bother me at all. So, should someone develop such :a critter that functioned like a browser and accessed newsgroups I'd not :have a single problem with that.
But your signature would still prohibit it.
We have three choices here:
- we ignore your signature; or
- we second-guess what you probably wouldn't mind if you had thought about it; or
- each and every one of us that uses that kind of setup and whom *might* encounter a message from you with your signature, writes you email and asks for specific permission to use the specific software setup. And we do the same for EVERYONE who posts (or might post) in any newsgroup we ever use, on the grounds that they -might- at some point decide to add a similar signature to yours. This -must- be pre-emptive, because if we wait until we actually see the signature, then we might find that the signature denies us permission to read the signature to find out what we were prohibitted from doing, and that it also denies us permission to read the email address from the headers in order to find out where to write to ask for an exemption!
Do you have time to evaluate a few tens of thousands of requests for exemptions? And since each of us -might- put a signature like yours in our postings, do you have time to write to several hundred thousand people asking for permission to ignore whatever reading restrictions they might choose to add in the future?
:A search of :your email address at Google brings up 1530 results
:(did you know those get harvested so :that you get loads of spam?)
The hits you found amount to roughly 2% of the occurances of my email address available via google, and about 3/4% of the postings I have made (or so google claims). As for spam, I personally get about ~200 per day, but acting as postmaster for our legacy domains (which I have been the only active user of for the last 3 years), we are peaking at about 10,000 spam per day.
:While this isn't a tangable property it's still a property and I suspect :that if this were a physically manifest property being stolen from you that :you'd have an entirely different view. The truth is that you DO own this and :you CAN place restrictions on it if you want.
That would depend upon jurisdiction, of course, but in USA and Canada, because you are knowingly releasing the message without controls over where it goes, what you are doing legally amounts to an "implied contract" that would be unlikely to stand up in court (e.g., it lacks the elements legally known as "acceptance" and "consideration"). If you wish to impose copyright controls, you must do so -before- publication; for example, you would have to contract with Microsoft that your postings would not be retransmitted outside of Microsoft servers. Effectively, an "implied contract" can -reduce- normal publication restrictions, but not -increase- normal publication restrictions.