[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]

nu.kanga.list.mud-dev

5222: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed

[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: PMDF e-Mail Interconnect <postmaster@nova.wright.edu>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 03:34:14 -0500 (EST)
Organization: Kanga.Nu
--Boundary_(ID_gweM8Y6/6t0FSnXHG4cUuA)
Content-type: text/plain

This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:

  Message-id: <199801100756.BAA20439@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
  Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:29:20 +0000 (PST8PDT)
  From: "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@ix.netcom.com>
  To: mud-dev@null.net
  Subject: [MUD-Dev] Totally OT... (Or is it?) (yes it is ;)

Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:

  Recipient address: s006jbh@nova.wright.edu
%MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output
-RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed
-SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded


--Boundary_(ID_gweM8Y6/6t0FSnXHG4cUuA)
Content-type: message/DELIVERY-STATUS

Original-envelope-id: 01IS749JC2SM8ZELY2@nova.wright.edu
Reporting-MTA: dns; nova.wright.edu

Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Original-recipient: rfc822;s006jbh@nova.wright.edu
Final-recipient: rfc822;s006jbh@nova.wright.edu

--Boundary_(ID_gweM8Y6/6t0FSnXHG4cUuA)
Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822

Return-path: mud-dev@null.net
Received: from nova.wright.edu by nova.wright.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #12548)
 id <01IS749LA6WW8ZEDFB@nova.wright.edu> (original mail from mud-dev@null.net)
 ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 03:34:13 EST
Received: from out5.ibm.net by nova.wright.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #12548)
 with ESMTP id <01IS749J7MOK8ZELY2@nova.wright.edu>; Sat,
 10 Jan 1998 03:34:10 EST
Received: from shadow.null.net (slip129-37-51-9.ca.us.ibm.net [129.37.51.9])
 by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA90300; Sat,
 10 Jan 1998 08:33:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from shadow.null.net ( [10.0.0.1] )
 by shadow.null.net (Hethmon Brothers Smtpd) ; Sat,
 10 Jan 1998 00:29:29 +0000 (PST8PDT)
Received: from wilma.globecomm.net [207.51.48.30] by in7.ibm.net id
 884418636.76192-1 ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 07:50:36 +0000
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6])
 by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id CAA03548 for
 <mud-dev@null.net>; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:53:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
 id BAA20439 for <mud-dev@null.net>; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 01:56:27 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ely-oh4-08.ix.netcom.com(206.216.59.136)
 by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017028; Sat Jan 10 01:31:27 1998
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:29:20 +0000 (PST8PDT)
From: "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Totally OT... (Or is it?) (yes it is ;)
In-reply-to: <199801100122.RAA00853@under.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: mud-dev <mud-dev@null.net>
To: mud-dev@null.net
Reply-to: mud-dev@null.net
Message-id: <199801100756.BAA20439@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: JL Systems, Inc.
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-OldDate: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 02:33:53 -4
References: <199801080020.24089.hridil.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <jlsysinc@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Listname: mud-dev@null.net

On  9 Jan 98 at 17:36, JC Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 17:20:10 PST8PDT Ola wrote:
> 
> > Spoke to a norwegian friend working in the US today, he
> > confirmed my observation (along with american professionals'
> > observation), the attitude is that the employer "owns" the employee
> > much more there than over here. (I know this is different in some
> > game houses)
> 
> This varies a lot, both by industry and locale.  For much of the IT
> industries here in the valley employers of necessity must play court
> to their employees.  If they don't, the employees just get up and
> leave, very very aware of the fact that they can have 5 other job
> offers, likely paying more, within a couple hours.  Part of that
> playing court is often ensuring that the stock value grows
> sufficiently fast as many employees are not interested in their
> (often) pitiful salaries, but in the extra incomes from their stock
> options.
> 
>   Story: A company I interviewed at early last year had a 1 year slump
> in their growth rate (starting right after my interview oddly enough),
> dropping from a pervious average growth rate of 150% - 175% per year
> down to about 14%.  By the end of slumping year (now) they had lost
> over three-quarrters of their technical staff as they'd all left of
> other jobs with better futures/options/etc.
> 
> It happens all the time.
> 

Of course you, I and likely many on this list are in high demand
technical fields (or are studying to be).  The mean lies somewhere in 
the vast other 80%+ of the economy.  It is the competition for labor and 
current economic boom which is causing owners to give employees benefits 
and rights. These benefits can be immediately curtailed, modified and 
revoked at the whim of ownership.  This is far, far different than a 
government imposed regulation on employers, which in good times is hardly
noticeable, but in bad economic times, it can destroy whole industries.  

--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato


--Boundary_(ID_gweM8Y6/6t0FSnXHG4cUuA)--