principalities
dennis grace
amazing at mail.utexas.edu
Thu Sep 19 12:55:05 PDT 1996
>On 19 Sep 96 , PUG (Richard Bainter) wrote:
>
>>
>> Thank you! I could not have said it better. I hope people realize
>> this. Although information can be instantaneous, it doesn't mean
>> it's authoritative or Law. It just means we get it quicker, not
>> more accurately.
>
>Which is why I hope that e-mail will be eventually treated as a valid
>means of communication instead of a means of spreading gossip.
>
>An official WWW page would be a nice source of accurate, up-to-date
>information and the Ansteorra-List would remain a place to kick ideas
>around and share opinions, feelings, etc. . . An informal meeting
>around a virtual campfire.
>
>I do not understand why HRM does not wish to treat personal e-mail as
>official correspondence but it is his decision. I find it much faster
>than USMAIL and much cheaper than long distance phone calls. [I
>recall making contributions to help pay a previous kings phone bills]
>
>I DO, however, understand a reluctance to accept discussions on this
>(or anyother) List as being a consensus of Kingdom opinion.
>
>Larkin - who still hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut
>===
>
>
>If you have a friend you trust well, | Lord Larkin O'Kane
> go often to see him; | Trelac, Ansteorra
>for brush and high grass will overgrow | Charlie Cain
> the road on which no one walks | San Angelo, Texas, USA
>-- Havamal | larkin at webstar.net
>
True, email can be printed out, just like real mail. On the other hand, I
don't believe there is any real way to authenticate the sender. Anyone can
use another person's email account--I use my husband's, I just turn off his
signature--but it would be easy for anyone with access to another person's
account to send postings under the account-owner's name and address. Of
course, I'm new to all this electronic stuff, so I'm not sure what could be
considered authenticated email.
Aquilanne
More information about the Ansteorra
mailing list