[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure
Please remove [email protected] from your mailing list. He is no
longer at this company.
From: Montgomery, Lynn
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 2:46 PM
To: Montgomery, Lynn
Subject: Notification: Inbound Mail Failure
The following recipients did not receive the attached mail. A NDR was
not sent to the originator for the following recipients for one of the
* The Delivery Status Notification options did not request failure
notification, or requested no notification.
* The message was of precedence bulk.
NDR reasons are listed with each recipient, along with the notification
requested for that recipient, or the precedence.
<[email protected]> [email protected]
MSEXCH:IMS:JONES:CORPORATE:CEDAR 0 (000C05A6) Unknown
The message that caused this notification was:
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 13:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ernest Hua <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected],
Subject: Why no coverage of CA resolution on Encryption?
Cc: [email protected]
Why was there no coverage of CA State resolution SJR-29?
I find it using the search facility at:
And the result is at:
The on-line magazine has a full article by Will Rodger on this:
Apparently there was some attempt by the Clinton Administration to
cover up their lobbying effort. I don't understand why the
Administration would care about a California state RESOLUTION of all
things. Why does the Clinton Administration want to prevent a state
legislature from speaking its mind?
And what's with this attempt to claim "copyright" on that fax?
Please get some answers on this! The US Senate/House will be voting
on important encryption legislation in the coming days. The people of
this country deserves to have a open, informed, serious discussion of
one of the most important privacy issues of the information age. We
cannot afford to let a few intelligence and law enforcement agencies
dictate policy TO us against our will.