Re: ILF... but is it, really?

Subject: Re: ILF... but is it, really?
From: Editor in Chief <editorialstandards -at- gmail -dot- com>
To: Matthew Helmke <matthew -at- matthewhelmke -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:17:38 -0500

I am not Mathew, nor do I spoof him on television.

"Editor in Chief" is just an appropriate-looking handle for the one among
my gmail accounts (editorialstandards....) that I've settled on for use
with semi-serious memberships on sites, forums, etc. It seemed to fit the
setting.
Previously, it was "RÃdacteur en chef" and even "Jefe de redacciÃn"... but
people kept thinking I was some dude named Jeff (not the Spanish "heffay"
that was intended).






On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Matthew Helmke
<matthew -at- matthewhelmke -dot- com>wrote:

> Maybe I'm confused. When I received it, the original email header said it
> was from:
> Editor in Chief (editorialstandards -at- gmail -dot- com) via matthewhelmke.com
>
> This is atypical for email I receive, so I guess I made a bad assumption.
>
> Sorry again for the confusion.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Fred Ridder <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com> wrote:
>
> > FWIW, the original query came from
> > Editor in Chief (editorialstandards -at- gmail -dot- com)
> > who has been contributing fairly often (if rather anonymously) to this
> > list for quite some time.
> > I'm not sure why Matthew thinks this was spam that came from his email
> > server
> > unless he is the person behind the "Editor in Chief" screen name...
> >
> > -Fred Ridder
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:03:33 -0600
> > > Subject: Re: Re: ILF... but is it, really?
> > > From: matthew -at- matthewhelmke -dot- com
> > > To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> >
> > >
> > > For what it is worth, everyone, the original email was spoofed from my
> > > email server. There is no account on my server for anyone with any
> > > variation of "Editor" in the username nor do I know anything about ILF.
> > >
> > > This is spam that got through the filter. Sorry, all.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Nancy Allison <maker -at- verizon -dot- net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Follow-up question. Just searched for "ILF" and got a definition
> that I
> > > > assume is not what you mean. What does ILF mean in your context?
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthew Helmke
> matthew -at- matthewhelmke -dot- com
> Author of Ubuntu Unleashed, Humor and Moroccan Culture, and Nowhere Else to
> Turn
> Coauthor of VMware Cookbook and The Official Ubuntu Book
>
>
>


--
__o
_`\<,_
(*)/ (*)
Don't go away. We'll be right back.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New! Doc-to-Help 2013 features the industry's first HTML5 editor for authoring.

Learn more: http://bit.ly/ZeOZeQ

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives


References:
Re: Re: ILF... but is it, really?: From: Nancy Allison
Re: Re: ILF... but is it, really?: From: Matthew Helmke
RE: ILF... but is it, really?: From: Fred Ridder
Re: ILF... but is it, really?: From: Matthew Helmke

Previous by Author: Re: Re: ILF... but is it, really?
Next by Author: Re: Printing a booklet
Previous by Thread: Re: ILF... but is it, really?
Next by Thread: Re: ILF... but is it, really?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads