- From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:32:21 +0100
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: W3C Semantic-Web list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hmm, so you did not the person who wrote the original mail and claimed to be "Etan Wexler" (the one with the group email as from), right? This are the headers of the private reply I've got this morning: Return-Path: <semantic-web@w3.org> Received: from chenab.cosmoweb.net (chenab.cosmoweb.net [66.234.224.15]) by gonza.gmuer.ch (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jBN2jYdo019425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <reto@gmuer.ch>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 03:45:37 +0100 Received: (qmail 28892 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2005 22:08:41 -0500 Received: from 71-255-234-66.cosmoweb.net (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (66.234.255.71) by 192.168.2.15 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2005 22:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: <43AB6A56.8060209@w3.org> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 22:09:10 -0500 From: Etan Wexler <semantic-web@w3.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird/1.5 This are the ones in the mail I've got from you Return-Path: <ewexler@stickdog.com> Received: from chenab.cosmoweb.net (chenab.cosmoweb.net [66.234.224.15]) by gonza.gmuer.ch (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id jBNGDhBO003792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <reto@gmuer.ch>; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:13:58 +0100 Received: (qmail 24121 invoked from network); 23 Dec 2005 11:36:52 -0500 Received: from 71-255-234-66.cosmoweb.net (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (66.234.255.71) by 192.168.2.15 with SMTP; 23 Dec 2005 11:36:52 -0500 Message-ID: <43AC27BF.9060906@stickdog.com> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:37:19 -0500 From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird/1.5 Interpretations? (Most competence in the email-header domain I expect from the other Ethan, but I don't have his email (well probably I do, but don't know which one) ;-) reto Etan Wexler schrieb: > > Hello, Reto. Hello, Etan. This here is Etan. > > I wonder why Etan would assume the address of a public mailing list. > Consider this a solicitation for explanation. >
Received on Friday, 23 December 2005 17:32:49 UTC