1996-06-18 - Re: Remailer Operator Liability?

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Message Hash: ee0bc5de0f3375e7786a633fefc431a54fde27a78455665de3b527d9190d142a
Message ID: <199606171703.NAA19819@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <2.2.32.19960617134543.00766238@popserver.panix.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-18 01:05:44 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:05:44 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:05:44 +0800
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Remailer Operator Liability?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960617134543.00766238@popserver.panix.com>
Message-ID: <199606171703.NAA19819@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Duncan Frissell writes:
> At 08:43 AM 6/17/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
> 
> >I believe we used the term "email exploder" instead of "mailing list,"
> >particularly in cross-examination and closing arguments, to convey the
> >idea that such a device is often used for conversation, not just one-way
> >communication.
> 
> Was this term invented during the hearings or has anyone heard of it before?

It is not common, but it used to be used in the early days a lot. I
don't think I've heard it much since '85 or so.

Perry

Thread

• Return to June 1996

• Return to “Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>”
• Return to “Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>”

• Return to “Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>”

• 1996-06-17 (Tue, 18 Jun 1996 02:40:23 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
  • 1996-06-18 (Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:05:44 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
    • 1996-06-19 (Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:13:59 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
  • 1996-06-18 (Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:51:37 +0800) - Re: Remailer Operator Liability? - Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>