




Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:36:26 -0400 (AST)
From: Jaelle <jaelle1@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

First Iwould also like to add my thanks to the many others to Anne.
You have been much appreciated.

As to Mr Wu taking the list.

I have no questions for you to answer.
You have my vote and support.

Thank you for taking us under your Masterful Origami wing.

Walk in Light

Gail





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:42:58 -0400 (AST)
From: V'Ann Cornelius <vann@lht.com>
Subject: re: sightings

A new airport terminal opened in San Diego. At the security station is a
stain glass wall about 8' x 50' long called "Paper Vortex". The image is
of a square piece of paper falling. As it falls it folds into a paper
dart and then transforms into the large origami Crane.

V'Ann





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:49:26 -0400 (AST)
From: "Goveia, William P" <wgoveia@indiana.edu>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

I would agree with Mr. Kerwood's statement.  I think given Joseph's
committment to Origami, and assuming he has already obtained the skills
(or promises from those with the skills) for the technical aspects, and
assuming no fees....and assuming that some policies for dealing with ads
are outlined in advance...I would vote for DNA and Joseph to take over.
If we were to change hosting organizations, perhaps we could take this
oppurtunity to think about some things.  I don't like ads either...but I
think we need to think about what constitues an ad.  Maybe if we lay all
of this out up front, we can avoid hurt feelings later...perhaps a faq
could be started....things like that....

My 2 cents anyway....

        ((((((((SNIP)))))
> be doing verses what others would do? If there is a problem, can
> you just fix it, or do you need to track someone down and beg for a
> few
> minutes from their busy schedule and hope they can get a chance to
> look at
> it sometime soon?
>
> If ALL parties are agreed that we will not get flooded with
> advertisements
> or asked for fees, and you don't need or have secured promises of
> cooperation from other technically involved parties - then you have my
> full
> support.  Go for it and good luck.
>
> =======================
>
> Good day,
> Jeff Kerwood
> jkerwood@usaor.net





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 12:51:03 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

>As for the "negatives" of being tied in with a commercial operation, could
>you
>please explain what those would be?

First off, it just rankles when I see the list headed out of a public
domain into a private. Perhaps this is immaterial when the list seems to be
all for the switch.

But mainly my negatives are thoughts along the following line:

Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the voice
of DNA's new magazine?

What kind of hardware and software can DNA really afford? Do they really
have the capital to support a mailing list? I'm sure MIT has the required
computing power and a good listserver program. I don't know this about DNA.
(Feel free to tell me so :->.)

What happens if DNA goes under in a year or two?

And by the way, I know of one mailing list, the bibliophile mailing list,
that you do indeed have to subscribe to with your checkbook.

Will DNA have the right to reprint all our postings as they see fit?
Perhaps they will be couteous and ask first, but I suspect they have the
legal right to use the postings in their magazine. Of course, our postings
are public already on the web, but giving a company the rights over them
does bother me.

And before anyone assumes this, for the record I DON'T see DNA or Joseph Wu
as evil incarnate, etc.. I'm sure their intentions are honorable. I just
don't see why the list needs to go to a private concern when we have the
MIT option. But perhaps Anne Lavin prefers the DNA option as well.

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Pat Slider
STONECUTTER
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 14:07:41 -0400 (AST)
From: Anne R LaVin <lavin@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

First, let me correct a slight misconception evident in some of the
mail - there is nothing at all to thank *me* for in this, I have not
been in any way involved with the managment of the list at NSTN!
(Nor, for that matter, did I do any direct management of it at its
various other homes along the way.)  My only involvement was being one
(of several) people who started chatting about origami via email ages
ago, and the thing grew from there...Solely because of this, I was
contacted by one of the admins at NSTN asking if we would consider
moving the list.

Second, a slight clarification on what it means to "host" or "manage"
a list: if a mailing list (even a large-ish one like origami-l) is run
on a machine with a decent mail handling package, then there's little need
for much human intervention.  Ideally it's nice for some real person
community can be contacted if there are problems, etc.  Currently,
there is no such "administrator," there are just the overworked
sys-admins at NSTN who help out when people get unintentionally
desubscribed and so forth.

So mostly what you care about from the mechanical maintenance side is:
can the mail server machine in question handle the load?  Is its
network connection reliable?  Is the mail handling software it's
running reliable, and does it have the features the community wants,
e.g. archiving, digests, etc.?  Will it stay stable for the forseeable
future?

>From the human interaction or community side, an additional nice thing
to have in a mailing list is someone who keeps an eye on the list
traffic itself, has the time to step in and try to mediate disputes,
and can be a reliable contact if something is wrong with the list
itself.

While the MIT option for hosting the list would definitely provide
good solutions for most of the technical requirements, I cannot
promise to have the time to do as much human intervention in the list
management as Joseph would; nor would I have the resources to do the
archiving and search functionality that he's already working on.  So
the DNA option sounds quite attractive from a resource point of view.
It seems to me that what the list needs to hammer out with Joseph is
the community's comfort level with being hosted by a company, exactly
what DNA's commitment to the community would be, etc.

Sorry this got kind of long, there are quite a lot of issues wrapped
up here, looks like.

Anne





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 14:32:47 -0400 (AST)
From: Fred Wolflink <fredless@massart.edu>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:51:48 -0400 (AST) slider@stonecutter.com (Pat
Slider) wrote:

>First off, it just rankles when I see the list headed out of a public
>domain into a private. Perhaps this is immaterial when the list seems
>to be all for the switch.

I much prefer to see the list remain in the public sphere as well.

>Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the
>voice of DNA's new magazine?

I'm concerned about this as well. The internet charters and policy
documents of most colleges and universities contain very clear language
supporting free speech and anti-censorship. This is not the case with
any private corporation regardless of how beneficient.

Were, for example, DNA to do something to negatively affect a member of
the origami community, thereby inciting lots of bad feelings and mail
postings, would those postings still be posted?

>What kind of hardware and software can DNA really afford? Do they
>really have the capital to support a mailing list? I'm sure MIT has the
>required computing power

MIT is literally right in the center of the internet. They probably have
the most reliable and sophisticated network environment available
anywhere on the planet - in hardware AND in support. For MIT to
disappear from the net would require something like the entire Internet
coming down.

How secure is DNA's network environment? Multiple T3's or higher through
multiple ISP's; redundant and hardened in probably every immaginable
way?

>What happens if DNA goes under in a year or two?

The list would move somewhere else. I'm more concerned with Joseph Wu
moving on. Will the list be 'owned' by Joseph Wu or DNA? If he leaves
the company, what is the state of the list? Who 'owns' the archives?

>And before anyone assumes this, for the record I DON'T see DNA or
>Joseph Wu as evil incarnate, etc.. I'm sure their intentions are
honorable.
>I just don't see why the list needs to go to a private concern when we
have
>the MIT option. But perhaps Anne Lavin prefers the DNA option as well.

Managing a mailing list doesn't require being on site.
What about joseph managing the list, but having the list reside at MIT?

Fred Wolflink
Associate Director Computer Arts Center
Massachusetts College of Art
621 Huntington Avenue
Boston MA 02115

(617) 232-1555 X358
(617) 566-4034 (FAX)
fredless@massart.edu





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 14:33:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

On  7 Jan 98 at 12:51, Pat Slider wrote:

I hesitate to leap in where Joseph can answer on his own, but...

> First off, it just rankles when I see the list headed out of a public
> domain into a private.

Can you elaborate?  I'm not sure what is so worthy about the public
domain nor so evil about private.  As a rule, the 'public' sites are
among the least secure, most-poorly-run sites anywhere on the
internet, and by contrast, the 'private' folk who have actually have
paid professionals to run those systems properly generally do a
better job...

> Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the voice
> of DNA's new magazine?

there must be some confusion here: the 'tone of the list' is nothing
more, and never has been nor will be, anything other than the
combined voices of *US*.  How could DNA change the 'tone of the
list'?   There is some possibility if they were setting up a
-moderated- list for them to do some hanky-panky, but an
open-distribution list is just not something they can do much to
affect.

As for the 'voice of', I think the answer will be a resounding
**YES**, just as this is the voice of Sausuga, and Dr. Sakoda's new
book, and RJLang's and the Tanteidan's the BOS and Montroll and ....
To the extent that they have something to contribute to the origami
community or have something to tell us about or to say, by all
means!!  -and- note that the -hosting- of the list has nothing to do
about it: if someone chooses to send announcements about the DNA
magazine or the like to the list, it would go to us all regardless of
where the list is hosted [just as the latest arrivals at Sausuga, or
Fascinating folks, or adverts for BOS publications or ... just go out
to us when someone chooses to send something]

> What kind of hardware and software can DNA really afford? Do they really
> have the capital to support a mailing list? I'm sure MIT has the required
> computing power and a good listserver program.

Why are you sure about this?  In my experience, the university based
listservs are among the most poorly run [often because they're the
bottom-responsibility of a too-small staff with other things to do
and there are a lot of part-time students around doing a lot of
the grunt work]. I don't know anything specific about MIT's
situation, mind you, but I'm not sure what leads to to be so sure.

And as for computing power, again I'm not sure what you're basing
this on.  Running a mailing list doesn't require all that much
'computing power'.  Requires fairly good network connectivity for a
big list [what's origami-l, anyone know?  I'd guess about long-term
average of about 25 messages a day and what, 200 of us on the list?
Even if there were 1000 on the list that's just not all that much
traffic or CPU load], but I'd doubt that origami-l would be all that
much of a burden --- probably too big a burden to run the list off
your PC on a 28.8 connection but anything approximating a real server
with a reasonable internet connection ought to be more than
adequate.

> What happens if DNA goes under in a year or two?

Same thing that happens if Anne takes a teaching position at another
school.  I doubt very seriously that Anne is in a position to commit
-MIT- to hosting our list, and so I suspect that if she departs [and
maybe even sooner if they do some kind of system audit or the like
-- I dunno what you have to do at MIT to get permission to use
internal resources for something like an off-campus public mailing
list] our list might be homeless.  Unless DNA [or MIT] dumps us
without warning we can worry about finding a new home if/when it
happens.

> And by the way, I know of one mailing list, the bibliophile mailing list,
> that you do indeed have to subscribe to with your checkbook.

Neat... I could have guessed that there'd be at least one someplace,
since there are thousands and thousands of mailing lists around the
Internet...

> Will DNA have the right to reprint all our postings as they see fit?
> Perhaps they will be couteous and ask first, but I suspect they have the
> legal right to use the postings in their magazine. Of course, our postings
> are public already on the web, but giving a company the rights over them
> does bother me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  The particulars of
which site is hosting the list makes no difference I know of for the
legalities of who can do what with postings that appear on the list.
I know of no legal precedent for what you say: can you bring us up
to date on this legal situation?  What 'rights' exactly are we
'giving' DNA that they wouldn't have already had, say, by just
subscribing to the list and getting our stuff as it is mailed out, or
by grabbing what they would like from the archives...

And I think that your statement about "our postings are public
already" is not quite correct and is what I see to be the tip of a
HUGE and complicated legal morass [one one which, as far as I know,
won't be affected one way or the other by the choice of what site
hosts the mailing list] having to do with copyright on the internet
and implicit-licensing and such...

  /Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:bernie@fantasyfarm.com     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 14:52:19 -0400 (AST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Garc=EDa_Macias_Carlos?= <CGMACIAS@telmex.net>
Subject: FW: a new home for origami-l?

Do you think that its possible that all can agree in this matter?

By example, the next joke seems to be similar...(from other
mailing list).
(and i agree in the change to other site IF the conditions are
at least the same [essentially, discussion, ideas, tips, info, etc.])

Carlos Garcia
cgmacias@telmex.net

> Q:  How many internet mail list subscribers does it take
>    to change a light bulb?
>
> A:  1,331:
>         1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail
>           list that the light bulb has been changed
>        14 to share similar experiences of changing light
>           bulbs and how the light bulb could have been
>           changed differently.
>         7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
>        27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about
>           changing light bulbs.
>        53 to flame the spell checkers
>       156 to write to the list administrator complaining about
>           the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness
>           to this mail list.
>
>
>        41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.
>       109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and
>           to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb
>       203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar,
>           alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing
>           light bulbs be stopped.
>       111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we
>           are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts
>           **are** relevant to this mail list.
>       306 to debate which method of changing light
>           bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs,
>           what brand of light bulbs work best for this
>           technique, and what brands are faulty.
>       27 to post URLs where one can see examples of
>           different light bulbs
>        14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and
>           to post corrected URLs.
>         3 to post about links they found from the URLs that
>           are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs
>           relevant to this list.
>        33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote
>           them including all headers and footers, and then
>           add "Me Too."
>        12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing
>           because they cannot handle the light bulb
>           controversey.
>        19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."
>         4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.
>          1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.
>        47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion
>           was meant for, leave it here.
>       143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 15:27:37 -0400 (AST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Garc=EDa_Macias_Carlos?= <CGMACIAS@telmex.net>
Subject: Re: A new home for origami-l?

(Sorry, but apparently i didn't send well). I repeat the e-mail:

Do you think that its possible that all can agree in this matter?

By example, the next joke seems to be similar...(from other
mailing list). (and i agree in the change to other site IF the
conditions are
at least the same [essentially: discussion, ideas, tips, info, etc.])

Carlos Garcia
cgmacias@telmex.net

Q:  How many internet mail list subscribers does it take
   to change a light bulb?

A:  1,331:
        1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail
          list that the light bulb has been changed
       14 to share similar experiences of changing light
          bulbs and how the light bulb could have been
          changed differently.
        7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
       27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about
          changing light bulbs.
       53 to flame the spell checkers
      156 to write to the list administrator complaining about
          the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness
          to this mail list.

       41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.
      109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and
          to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb
      203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar,
          alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing
          light bulbs be stopped.
      111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we
          are all use light bulbs and therefore the posts
          **are** relevant to this mail list.
      306 to debate which method of changing light
          bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs,
          what brand of light bulbs work best for this
          technique, and what brands are faulty.
      27 to post URLs where one can see examples of
          different light bulbs
       14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and
          to post corrected URLs.
        3 to post about links they found from the URLs that
          are relevant to this list which makes light bulbs
          relevant to this list.
       33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote
          them including all headers and footers, and then
          add "Me Too."
       12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing
          because they cannot handle the light bulb
          controversey.
       19 to quote the "Me Too's" to say, "Me Three."
        4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.
         1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup.
       47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion
          was meant for, leave it here.
      143 votes for alt.lite.bulb.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 15:34:29 -0400 (AST)
From: "Steven E." <amodels@tesser.com>
Subject: Remove-Please take me off list

Hi,

I thought I might want to be on the origami list for updates on books, but
somehow I'm on the list where I receive almost 20-30 new emails a day.

I would appreciate it so much if someone could take me off this list.

Thank you,

Bonnie





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 15:38:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l? (LONG)

There seem to  be a few misconceptions here, and I shall do my best to
address them, as well as the real concerns that do exist. Thanks also to
Anne LaVin for clarifying a few issues.

0. Please guys! I've always only been "Joseph" on this list. Let's not
start getting all formal and calling me "Mr. Wu" or "Mr. Joseph Wu"
all-of-a-suddenly!

1. Anne has never before administered this list. She is offering to host it
at MIT (i.e. an alternative to hosting it here at DNA). And I'm sure I'm
not the only one who appreciates the offer!

2. NSTN.CA is also a commercial site, so any outcry about moving from a
non-commercial host to a commercial host is strictly erroneous. For details
about NSTN.CA, take a look at <http://www.cdnnet.ca/regs/ca.nstn.html>. The
only difference is that we have a vested interest in making sure that this
list performs well since it will reflect negatively on us if we don't. The
folks at NSTN do not have that kind of committment (although I'm glad they
did host it for so long).

3. Administering a list is simply that. We provide a host machine and
someone to take care of it. We don't control what is being said (the list
members will say what they want). We don't control who can become a member
(although if we do get someone who is causing a major disruption, we could
block them from joining).

4. That being the case, why do we want to commit the resources to doing
this? Well, there's the goodwill involved toward the online origami
community. We cannot succeed in our magazine venture if there is no
readership (which means no advertisers). Also, it's a selling point to the
advertisers if we can show that we have an "intimate knowledge" of  origami
on the Internet.

5. Any advertising will not take place on the mailing list, but in the
magazine.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The following are responses to various messages from various people.

>From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
>
>I'd be inclined to vote for Mr. Wu's proposal.  I have nothing
>against either Anne or MIT's Listserv, but Joseph has proven to have
>a LOT of energy to devote to the on-line presence of origami [if only
>we could get him participating in the newsgroup...:o)] and I think
>the list would benefit to have someone that active being 'close' to
>its administration [if something goes wrong, Joseph will almost
>certainly notice instantly and equally almost certainly ensure that
>it gets fixed posthaste].

True. While I will probably not be personally responsible for administering
the site, I will most certainly notice and will be able to just walk down
the hall to get our sysadmin to fix the problem.

>In terms of the actual list operation, the location is probably
>irrelevant: listservs are listservs [except with they're real picky
>like NSTN's...:o)] and so we list-folk probably won't notice: one
>change to 'origami-l' in our address books and everything else
>should be transparent.  The archive is already not-colocated with the
>listserv so that's not an issue.

Correct.

>In terms of commercial problems, I doubt that'll be an issue no
>matter what DNA wants: far as I know there has -never- been a
>pay-to-play email list anywhere on the internet any time in its
>history, and I doubt VERY seriously they'd even consider trying such
>a thing, so the mailing list will certainly continue unimpeded.
>I trust that DNA will not have their listserv tack an 'ad' onto each
>posting to the list [yes, listservs can do that: when you set up a
>list the admin can specify things like "appen this to every
>message"]; reassurance on this would be appreciated.

There are such paying mailing lists, but we won't do that. Besides, if we
tried anything as stupid as that, someone would just create a new list and
everyone would shift over. End of story. We will probably add a single line
to each message pointing to a web page that gives the information that
Maarten gives in his monthly admin postings and also provides the search
service. I would think that that would be acceptable?

>As for DNA's other activities, I don't think that'll affect
>the mailing list one way or the other, and so don't figure into the
>discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Again, correct.

>This is not correct.  A properly set up and run mailing list on top
>of a properly configured 'sendmail' *CAN* protect its list of
>addresses.  If this isn't true at DNA they can/should be able to get
>updated copies of their software and configure it carefully and this
>problem will go away....

Yes, the list of addresses can be protected from outsiders. However ANY
LIST MEMBER can also get a list of addresses. There is no way to stop
anyone from joining the list, copying the membership list, and using it.
That possibility has been raised before.

>From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
>
>1) Who has final say in policy about what is posted here - are all
>sponsors/advertisers aware of the commitments you are making to us about
>keeping this a "no-pressure zone". And if it comes head2head between you
>and them - who will have the final say?

The policy has always been and will continue to be that people will post
what they want and others will tell them to shut up if they don't like what
is said. DNA will not take an active role in policing the list content. I
will personally take an active role in doing this, but only as a regular
list member.

>2) I believe you said that email is administered by others at DNA. What,
>that has to do with the listserver/email/??? setup and administration,
>would you be doing verses what others would do? If there is a problem, can
>you just fix it, or do you need to track someone down and beg for a few
>minutes from their busy schedule and hope they can get a chance to look at
>it sometime soon?

We have a mail administrator who is responsible for all email in the
company. The listserver will be in his charge. If there is a problem, I
will probably be the one to notice it, and he will fix it as soon as I tell
him. That IS his job, after all. Besides, technically, he reports to me. 8)

>From: "Goveia, William P" <wgoveia@indiana.edu>
>
>I would agree with Mr. Kerwood's statement.  I think given Joseph's
>committment to Origami, and assuming he has already obtained the skills
>(or promises from those with the skills) for the technical aspects, and
>assuming no fees....and assuming that some policies for dealing with ads
>are outlined in advance...I would vote for DNA and Joseph to take over.
>If we were to change hosting organizations, perhaps we could take this
>oppurtunity to think about some things.  I don't like ads either...but I
>think we need to think about what constitues an ad.  Maybe if we lay all
>of this out up front, we can avoid hurt feelings later...perhaps a faq
>could be started....things like that....

"We have the technology. We can rebuild him." (Sorry. Six Million Dollar
Man flashback.) There will be no fees involved with the mailing list, nor
will there be ads in the mailing list.

>From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
>
>First off, it just rankles when I see the list headed out of a public
>domain into a private. Perhaps this is immaterial when the list seems to be
>all for the switch.

Again, this is not true. NSTN is a private, for-profit company.

>But mainly my negatives are thoughts along the following line:
>
>Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the voice
>of DNA's new magazine?

No. This is simply a shift of host, not a "corporate takeover".

>What kind of hardware and software can DNA really afford? Do they really
>have the capital to support a mailing list? I'm sure MIT has the required
>computing power and a good listserver program. I don't know this about DNA.
>(Feel free to tell me so :->.)

We have a permanent T1 connection to the BCNet backbone, so access speed
should not be an issue. We have a spare machine with plenty of disk space
to host the list. We have all of the necessary software (we already have
several internal mailing lists). We have someone to look after that machine.

>What happens if DNA goes under in a year or two?

I hope not! But, yes, that is a valid concern. Well, then the list will
move again. But that is a possibility at any location. What if Anne leaves
MIT? The list will be forced to move again.

>Will DNA have the right to reprint all our postings as they see fit?
>Perhaps they will be couteous and ask first, but I suspect they have the
>legal right to use the postings in their magazine. Of course, our postings
>are public already on the web, but giving a company the rights over them
>does bother me.

We will not publish without permission, and will probably pay a fee for use
of material. The legality of the situation is unclear, but I believe that
mailing list and newsgroup messages are considered to be in the public
domain unless a copyright notice is included. Don't quote me on that,
though.

>And before anyone assumes this, for the record I DON'T see DNA or Joseph Wu
>as evil incarnate, etc.. I'm sure their intentions are honorable. I just
>don't see why the list needs to go to a private concern when we have the
>MIT option. But perhaps Anne Lavin prefers the DNA option as well.

Thanks, Pat. Anne's answer is below.

>From: Anne R LaVin <lavin@MIT.EDU>
>
>So mostly what you care about from the mechanical maintenance side is:
>can the mail server machine in question handle the load?  Is its
>network connection reliable?  Is the mail handling software it's
>running reliable, and does it have the features the community wants,
>e.g. archiving, digests, etc.?  Will it stay stable for the forseeable
>future?

I think we can provice all of that.

>>From the human interaction or community side, an additional nice thing
>to have in a mailing list is someone who keeps an eye on the list
>traffic itself, has the time to step in and try to mediate disputes,
>and can be a reliable contact if something is wrong with the list
>itself.

And that's where I come in. Anne would be that person if the list were
moved to MIT.

>While the MIT option for hosting the list would definitely provide
>good solutions for most of the technical requirements, I cannot
>promise to have the time to do as much human intervention in the list
>management as Joseph would; nor would I have the resources to do the
>archiving and search functionality that he's already working on.  So
>the DNA option sounds quite attractive from a resource point of view.
>It seems to me that what the list needs to hammer out with Joseph is
>the community's comfort level with being hosted by a company, exactly
>what DNA's commitment to the community would be, etc.

I think I've commented on all of those concerns already. If there are any
other questions, feel free to ask!

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 15:54:59 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

>I hesitate to leap in where Joseph can answer on his own, but...

Thanks, Bernie. Saves me some work. 8)

>Can you elaborate?  I'm not sure what is so worthy about the public
>domain nor so evil about private.  As a rule, the 'public' sites are
>among the least secure, most-poorly-run sites anywhere on the
>internet, and by contrast, the 'private' folk who have actually have
>paid professionals to run those systems properly generally do a
>better job...

That depends on the location. I would hesitate to generalise to such
categories. But, as Bernie points out, having a dedicated professional
handling the server is a big plus, and we are offering that.

>And as for computing power, again I'm not sure what you're basing
>this on.  Running a mailing list doesn't require all that much
>'computing power'.  Requires fairly good network connectivity for a
>big list [what's origami-l, anyone know?  I'd guess about long-term
>average of about 25 messages a day and what, 200 of us on the list?
>Even if there were 1000 on the list that's just not all that much
>traffic or CPU load], but I'd doubt that origami-l would be all that
>much of a burden --- probably too big a burden to run the list off
>your PC on a 28.8 connection but anything approximating a real server
>with a reasonable internet connection ought to be more than
>adequate.

Actually there are just under 600 members on the list right now. Still,
given a good net connection, the traffic for our list could easily be
handled by a low-end PC with sufficient disk space.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 15:55:32 -0400 (AST)
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

>I much prefer to see the list remain in the public sphere as well.

Again, a fallacy.

>>Will the tone of the list change? Will origami-l suddenly become the
>>voice of DNA's new magazine?
>
>I'm concerned about this as well. The internet charters and policy
>documents of most colleges and universities contain very clear language
>supporting free speech and anti-censorship. This is not the case with
>any private corporation regardless of how beneficient.

And we intend to maintain the status quo of the list.

>Were, for example, DNA to do something to negatively affect a member of
>the origami community, thereby inciting lots of bad feelings and mail
>postings, would those postings still be posted?

Yes. We don't have the time to sift through every message before it is
posted! DNA will deal with technical issues. Policing remains the
responsibility of the membership.

>MIT is literally right in the center of the internet. They probably have
>the most reliable and sophisticated network environment available
>anywhere on the planet - in hardware AND in support. For MIT to
>disappear from the net would require something like the entire Internet
>coming down.

True, but MIT as a whole will not be committed to running this list. It
remains the responsibility of Anne, and she may not be there forever.

>How secure is DNA's network environment? Multiple T3's or higher through
>multiple ISP's; redundant and hardened in probably every immaginable
>way?

I don't think I'm going to divulge our security information to anyone
outside the company. Besides, what does security have to do with running a
mailing list? It is, by definition, a public forum and ANYONE can access
the list and its archives. As for connection speed, we have a permanent T1
line. That is more than sufficient for all of our internal needs, and
overkill for maintaining a mailing list.

>The list would move somewhere else. I'm more concerned with Joseph Wu
>moving on. Will the list be 'owned' by Joseph Wu or DNA? If he leaves
>the company, what is the state of the list? Who 'owns' the archives?

The list would be "owned" by DNA. If I were to leave, an arrangement would
have to be made, of course. The archives will go with the list, so if it
remains at DNA, they will stay here, and if it moves elsewhere, they will
go along for the ride.

>Managing a mailing list doesn't require being on site.
>What about joseph managing the list, but having the list reside at MIT?

I doubt Anne could convince someone to give me an account at MIT just like
that. Besides, Anne has already stated that she cannot handle the search
engine there.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:07:51 -0400 (AST)
From: "Ortiz, Cathy" <CORTIZ@foxsportsintl.com>
Subject: RE: RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)

What/Where is Sasuga?

> ----------
> From:         ROCKYGROD[SMTP:ROCKYGROD@aol.com]
> Reply To:     origami-l@nstn.ca
> Sent:         Tuesday, January 06, 1998 8:58 PM
> To:   Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:      Re:  RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)
>
> Sasuga has the FUSE MASK book now.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 16:42:13 -0400 (AST)
From: michael gebis <gebism@std.teradyne.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l? (LONG)

>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
>>>>> wrote the following on Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:38:08 -0400 (AST)
[Much deletia between paragraphs-mjg]
  Joseph> There seem to be a few misconceptions here, and I shall do
  Joseph> my best to address them, as well as the real concerns that
  Joseph> do exist. Thanks also to Anne LaVin for clarifying a few
  Joseph> issues.

  Joseph> The policy has always been and will continue to be that
  Joseph> people will post what they want and others will tell them to
  Joseph> shut up if they don't like what is said. DNA will not take
  Joseph> an active role in policing the list content. I will
  Joseph> personally take an active role in doing this, but only as a
  Joseph> regular list member.

  Joseph> I think I've commented on all of those concerns already. If
  Joseph> there are any other questions, feel free to ask!

Perhaps those who are leary would feel more comfortable if we had a
good charter (to spell out what is and is not appropriate) in place.

If forced, I'd suggest something short and simple like:
--
Origami-L is an unmoderated public mailing list for origami related
discussion by the online origami community.  On-topic advertisements are
permitted,  but should be short and informational.
--

Perhaps we should get a little more specific, but I prefer the direct
approach.  Think of it as a mission statement.  I think a charter could
make it clear that the list is intended to serve the community and not
just DNA, and it permits advertisements while making it clear that it's
not just a place to sell your wares.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 17:35:14 -0400 (AST)
From: skirsch@t-online.de (Sebastian Marius Kirsch)
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Pat Slider wrote:
> ...and I would vote for keeping the list independent. Gosh, MIT isn't so
> bad is it? Anyway, I don't see that the "benefits" outweigh the negatives
> of the list being tied in with a commercial operation -- even one as noble
> and wonderful as an online origami magazine.

origami.net is also run by a commercial company, and there have been no
problems with that till now. And even if DNA should try to do anything to
our list we don't want, it should be a matter of a few hours to start a
new list on another server. I don't really see a problem with that.

On the other hand, mainframes are famous for their reliability, but we
didn't have many problems with listserver failures in the past, so I hope
that we won't in the future. (Unices can also be made moderately
reliable.) And if we're lucky, we will even get a listserver that can pass
the basic MIME header lines through, so we can at least write accented
letters without problems.

I suppose that all arguments are in favour of Joseph Wu hosting the list.
He has already done much for the online origami community by providing his
excellently maintained home page.

Yours, Sebastian                                       skirsch@t-online.de
                        /or/ sebastian_kirsch@kl.maus.de (no mail > 16KB!)





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 17:51:19 -0400 (AST)
From: MSPARKS@pinkertons.com (MATTHEW SPARKS 05-025)
Subject: origami software sighting

just scanning some software catalogs here at work and
found in the MicroWarehouse Catalog (800 367 6808)(www.warehouse.com)

A program called Origami: the Secret life of paper $49.95
says it has about 80 quicktime movies showing the steps for a dozen folds

cranes swans frogs pagodas and more

It says it also includes
paper
history of origami and paper making and
a gallery of works by "origami masters"
and lessons on how to make paper from junkmail (hmmm)

The publisher is listed as Casady & Greene

I looked back on the list and didn't see anything on this. Is this new?
is it any good? who did it?

Matthew Makaala Sparks                          Desk (818) 380-8712
Senior Technical Support Specialist             Fax  (818) 380-8677
Pinkerton Security & Investigation Services
15910 Ventura Blvd.; Suite 900
Encino, CA  91436                               Ham Radio KE6GVI
  email = MSparks@Pinkertons.com
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Say "Plugh"...                                 "XYZZY"





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:04:27 -0400 (AST)
From: Valerie Vann <valerie_vann@compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

A few comments:

<< The archive is already not-colocated with the
listserv so that's not an issue.>>

The "archive" maintained at rugcis by M. van Gelder
is a private voluntary effort: it has no functional association
with the listserver. Maarten retrieves the messages, occasionally
gets dumped off the list like everyone else (as I recall), and
beyond the message archive the rest of his operation is not
a normal listserver function, it is his own creation. The
listserver at nstn.ca has its own archive of messages in the
form of one compressed file per month. No diagram files, etc.
(Apparently the file space of the listserver archive is one of
the reasons why nstn's new operators/owners would like the list
to move elsewhere.)

Unlike the rugcis private archive, the nstn listserver archive
is immediately updated with distributed messages. A new listserver
would presumably maintain a similar automatic archiving function,
so the rugcis.nl "archive" is not at issue here as far as I can
see either; but I think it needs to be pointed out that the rugcis
archive is not an ordinary listserver operation.

<<owner of the list>>

When a mailing is established (or used to be, anyway), the
founder became the "owner". When you looked up the list on a list of
lists, or asked the listserver for information on the list, you
got the "owner's" name and Email address. If the list was
moderated, that is, if there was a person who "policed" the list to
keep messages on subject, delete irrelevant material, ask disorderly
persons to leave, etc. (and in some cases, control membership, by
invitation only for instance), the owner was usually also the
moderator.

The origami-L, however, is an un-moderated list. So there has been
essentially nothing for the owner to do. In fact, the minor
administrative function of a once-a-month notice of how to
unsubscribe etc. have been carried out by Maarten Van Gelder
for all the years I've belonged to the list. Outside of an occasional
human intervention by the nstn listserver manager (when the program
gets cranky about subscribing or unsubscribing), administration by
nstn has amounted to benign neglect and the generous donation of
file space for the "official" archive.

If the origami-L remains an unmoderated list, then it will still
have an "owner"; there's no reason that I can see that Anne can't
continue to be the "official owner. However, if the list is
unmoderated, then by definition & custom, no one, not even the
owner, has the right to censor messages or restrict membership.
The members of the list can only make their opinions known to
those who violate the list's standards of courtesy or post
off subject. By Internet custom, commercial messages are not
welcome on non-commercial mailing lists, except for related
issues such as new book announcements and offers for sale;
this has always been a very minor part of the the origami-L traffic.

The fact that nstn has not attempted to interfere with the list
traffic or membership probably is a result of the fact that
nstn's commercial activity is totally unrelated to the subject
matter of the list, and that the subject matter and general tone
of the list would be unlikely to produce any unpleasant
consequences to the host.

A few members have expressed uneasiness with transferring the
origami-L to a private commercial listserver. I feel the same
concerns.

For me this is a matter of principle; it has nothing
to do with Joseph Wu or the DNA company. It is because the
origami-L, though in fact hosted by a private company (nstn.ca),
has been to me a golden example of the type of non-commercial,
courteous, thoughtful, self-controlled, international endeavor
devoted to the pursuit of knowledge in an atmosphere balancing
free speech and good sense, that the Internet was ideally
intended to facilitate.

Those aspects, plus my belief that MIT *will* be in existence
5, 10, 20 years into the new millenium, operating in a spirit
of academic freedom, lead me to prefer that the origami-L have
a new home there if possible, in preference to *ANY* commercial
establishment, even - or perhaps, especially - one that is
origami related in some way. It seems to me that
Anne and MIT are "naturals" for this: the list deals with subject
matter that includes traditional crafts, Japanese issues, art,
philosophy, and a substantial amount of material related to
mathmatics, hence "at home" in an academic environment.

However, it appears that the "vote" is running in favor of
Joseph Wu and DNS assuming list operation and hosting. So I have
a few suggestions:

1. A special effort be made to contact long timers on the list
to make them aware of that the list is going to be moving. There
are a number of people who due to the season, etc. are not
currently monitoring the list closely, or are temporarily off the
list. I think they deserve to be informed.

(I have CC'd this message to a number of people who may not be closely
monitoring the list presently; if you receive a duplicate, I do
apologize.)

2. I would like to see Anne LaVin continue to be the official
"owner" of the list, and if possible, maintain a mirror archive
of the message traffic at MIT. Then if the new host doesn't work
out or some issue of commercialism arises, as "owner", she would
have the right to look for a new home for the list, and there
would be a backup for the message archive.

3. I wouldn't have a problem with DNA posting the odd announcement
about their magazine and other origami related material (just as
I have no problem with the occasional posts from Kim's Cranes and
Fascinating Folds, or people offering books for sale). I WOULD have
a BIG problem with any other use of the list by the hosting

4. I am hoping that a new home will also result in our having the
advantage of newer listserver software. For example, one of the other
mail lists I subscribe to has an archive that is accessible by web
browser, with messages presented by subject (thread) or date. That
list has a high volume of attached graphic files, and in the archive
these are linked to the messages themselves, so that you don't lose
track of what goes with what. (I know some others on origami-L are
also on that list; if Joseph is interested in what software is
being used, I could ask about it. The list itself is "private",
not open to public subscription, and the archive site requires a
user name and password.)

5. MIT and Anne LaVin would therefore be my first choice for a new
home. Either way, though I would prefer that Anne remain "owner",
we should have a firm commitment IN WRITING (posted to the list) from
the new host that commercial use will continue to be confined to
relevant announcements, that the list will be unmoderated, uncensored,
and open to all, and that the archive will be maintained verbatim, uncut
and uncensored, freely accessible by anonymous ftp or web browser.

This has been a rather long post; I will not apologize for that
however, as I believe that issues being discussed are significant,
and need to be aired on the list itself to become part of the archive.
The origami-L is THE reason I first obtained Internet access years
ago, and I care deeply that it continue to be both the valuable
resource and remarkable online community that it has been for so long.

I'm appending below the text of Grace Chiu's original post about the
origami-L listserver new management, as I suspect many missed it due
to the timeing and subject heading of her post:

quote=============================================

I'm back from my way-too-long origami-l hiatus and working at iSTAR.
The server that this list is on is actually on a server that my group is
now managing, and we are in the process of upgrading & standardizing it.

Is there a list owner on here?  Or at least someone who can tell me what
should be done with all the archives here?  There seems to be 2 copies
of everything, and apparently origami-l takes up the most space of all
the lists served here.

{unrelated material followed}
Regards,
Grace Chiu,
Still Folding...
iSTAR Internet Inc.
Ottawa, ON, Canada
endquote=================================================

Valerie Vann
Valerie_Vann@compuserve.com
  Mostly Modular/Geometric Origami Web Pages:
    http://people.delphi.com/vvann/index.html
    http://members.aol.com/valerivann/index.html
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/valerie_vann





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:27:00 -0400 (AST)
From: Pat Slider <slider@stonecutter.com>
Subject: Re: origami software sighting

>I looked back on the list and didn't see anything on this. Is this new?
>is it any good? who did it?

This is the one by Robert Lang. I just got it for xmas and I'm enjoying it.
The models given are nice but you probably have them in books already. Nice
video instructions but I would say this section is more for the
beginning/intermediate folder. The origami gallery is wonderful though for
anyone...plenty to be inspired by. And there is so much information about
origami included, I am thinking of this CD as a kind of dictionary. You can
read about it here by the way:

www.cloudrunner.com

Looking forward to the sequel!

(I find it amusing that this is distributed by Casady & Green. This company
is associated with our household favorite GliderPro, an arcade game where
you fly a paper airplane. If you stretch it, perhaps we might consider
GliderPro an origami program :->?)

pat slider
slider@stonecutter.com

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Pat Slider
STONECUTTER
slider@stonecutter.com





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:36:40 -0400 (AST)
From: Lisa Hodsdon <Lisa_Hodsdon@hmco.com>
Subject: NORM: Who posts most?

Rising to the challenge: Among unconcealed subscribers, the
most postings to the list *using the currently subscribed address*
is 217. (I'll let you find out who that is yourself!) I come in at a
paltry 81, still nearly twice as much as Joseph. (As of this morning.
This latest flurry from Joseph probably makes our stats much
closer!)

Of course several of us who are in the high numbers have been
subscribed using different addresses at different times, so the
number that the listserv provides in its "statistics" listing is not
our all-time total.

Other interesting facts: 217 current subscribers have never
posted; another 136 have posted five or fewer messages; 13
have posted more than 100 messages; 20 have posted more
than 50 but less than 100; 3 are at 49; and as of this afternoon
there's actually 21 in the 50 to 100 range.

Now I've had my number fix for the day.

Lisa
Lisa_Hodsdon

Hoping the lists new home won't ever kick me off!





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:46:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Chris Miller <chris@ori.net>
Subject: Re: A origami comic and also a respoonse to Re: a new home for
 origami-l?

From: Mike & Janet Hamilton <Mikeinnj@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: A origami comic and also a respoonse to Re: a new home for
origami-l?

>Chris Miller wrote:
>
>> First i'd like to say that I felt like playing around with photoshop so i
>> scanned in an old origami comic i found in the actualy NEWSpaper and put
it
>> up
>
>What was the title of this comic?  Also, what newspaper was it in?
>
>--
>mailto:Mikeinnj@concentric.net
>http://www.concentric.net/~Mikeinnj/

Eek!  Hurm, it's been awhile, but I *think* the comics title is 'bizarro'
maybe, or something like that.. and myself living in indianapolis, it's from
our only daily newspaper (and not that good of one)  The Indianapolis Star.

    I hope that answers your question! :)
-chris





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:56:10 -0400 (AST)
From: Chris Miller <chris@ori.net>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Wu <josephwu@ultranet.ca>
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 9:41 PM
Subject: RE: a new home for origami-l?

>>I hesitate to leap in where Joseph can answer on his own, but...
>
>Thanks, Bernie. Saves me some work. 8)
>
>>Can you elaborate?  I'm not sure what is so worthy about the public
>>domain nor so evil about private.  As a rule, the 'public' sites are
>>among the least secure, most-poorly-run sites anywhere on the
>>internet, and by contrast, the 'private' folk who have actually have
>>paid professionals to run those systems properly generally do a
>>better job...
>
>That depends on the location. I would hesitate to generalise to such
>categories. But, as Bernie points out, having a dedicated professional
>handling the server is a big plus, and we are offering that.
>
>>And as for computing power, again I'm not sure what you're basing
>>this on.  Running a mailing list doesn't require all that much
>>'computing power'.  Requires fairly good network connectivity for a
>>big list [what's origami-l, anyone know?  I'd guess about long-term
>>average of about 25 messages a day and what, 200 of us on the list?
>>Even if there were 1000 on the list that's just not all that much
>>traffic or CPU load], but I'd doubt that origami-l would be all that
>>much of a burden --- probably too big a burden to run the list off
>>your PC on a 28.8 connection but anything approximating a real server
>>with a reasonable internet connection ought to be more than
>>adequate.
>
>Actually there are just under 600 members on the list right now. Still,
>given a good net connection, the traffic for our list could easily be
>handled by a low-end PC with sufficient disk space.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph Wu, Producer, DNA Productions Inc.
>t:604.730.0306 x 105     f: 604.732.7331     e: joseph@dna.bc.ca

Joseph, everyone, i'm sorry if i ignited some of these complaints which seem
really stupid... My hands usually do the typing --not my head :>-- and
sometimes i mistype a complete word.. When i wrote about advertisements i
meant about announcements of updates to web pages, and stuff like that.
    Also, what is this (pardon my rudeness) whining about the list going
from a supposedly public domain into a private domain?  One, so far i
haven't really seen any bad things that would happen with this switch except
people changing their links page, and maybe some confusion in the beginning.
But I sincerely doubt, and correct me if i misunderstood this, that going to
a private domain means we'll have to pay to be on the list.  Commercial
sites are usually FASTER than other sites, and all that matters to me is
faster, because sometimes i see replies to posts, before i actually see the
original post!  And if we can get around some of these times when the list
might kick you off, etc.. I'm all for it and I say we switch.

Tear my post apart at will,
Chris 'I came home from school and i had about 45 new posts to read' Miller.





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:11:55 -0400 (AST)
From: Mr & Mrs Owen <djowen@pcl.net>
Subject: Re: Remove-Please take me off list

Hi Bonnie,

I've already written you from Hotmail, but I thought of something else.
You can get a whole week's messages at a time.  This might be easier to
scan.  Yes, there are often notes about new books and a least two origami
authors are on this list  (James Sakoda and Robert Lang).  I think there
are others.  I recommend just deleting the messages for the next couple
days until the discussion is done about moving.  I've been on since June
and usually there aren't more than 10 emails a days.

Joyce Owen





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:48:45 -0400 (AST)
From: Unafolder <Unafolder@aol.com>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

A serious note from the Unafolder:

The current list of members is available by sending a command to the
listserver NOW.  Some insidious capitalism pigfolder could easily sell the
list of subscribers to origami-l ,and could have for years.

I say, "To what end?"   As an official member of the Lowlife Capitalist Club,
I can think of very little advantage for a spammer to capture the market of
online paperfolders.  We are important only to each other.

Una





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:52:43 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
Subject: Re: a new home for origami-l?

> From: michael gebis <gebism@std.teradyne.com>
>
> Perhaps those who are leary would feel more comfortable if we had a
> good charter (to spell out what is and is not appropriate) in place.
>
> If forced, I'd suggest something short and simple like:
> --
> Origami-L is an unmoderated public mailing list for origami related
> discussion by the online origami community.  On-topic advertisements are
> permitted,  but should be short and informational.
> --

Who would "pass into law" the charter, who would enforce it and who would
dole out punishment ;-)  ?

Jeff Kerwood
jkerwood@usaor.net





Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:56:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Jeff Kerwood <jkerwood@usaor.net>
Subject: Re: RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)

> From: Ortiz, Cathy <CORTIZ@foxsportsintl.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <origami-l@nstn.ca>
> Subject: RE: RE: "The Mask"? (New book by FUSE Tomoko)
> Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 3:08 PM
>
> What/Where is Sasuga?

http://world.std.com/~sasuga/origami1.html

Jeff Kerwood
jkerwood@usaor.ent
