text:
Tranz Rail

Tranz Rail, formally Tranz Rail Holdings Limited (New Zealand Rail Limited until 1995), was the main rail operator in New Zealand from 1991 until it was purchased by Toll Holdings in 2003.

History
The New Zealand railway network was initially built by provincial governments, starting with the Ferrymead Railway in 1863. From 1880, a central Government department, the New Zealand Railways Department, was responsible for operating most of the growing railway network. A few private lines were built, but only one, the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company (W&MR) achieved any measure of success. The W&MR was nationalised in 1908. In 1931, due to increasing competition from road carriers, the Transport Licensing Act 1931 was passed, restricting road cartage and giving the railways department a monopoly on long-distance freight. In 1982, the same year the land transport sector was deregulated, the Railways Department was reconstituted as the New Zealand Railways Corporation, a statutory corporation (later a state-owned enterprise from 1986). The Railways Corporation restructured the operations of the railway network substantially during the 1980s, reducing staffing levels, closing workshops, and introducing a number of measures to increase productivity, such as removing guard's vans, increasing train lengths and introducing new, heavier bulk bogie wagons.

Formation
The Fourth Labour Government passed the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990 on 28 August of that year. Two months later, on 28 October 1990, the New Zealand government removed core rail transport and shipping operations from the New Zealand Railways Corporation, creating a separate entity called New Zealand Rail Limited, a Crown Transferee company created under the Act. At the same time, the Rail Heritage Trust of New Zealand was formed to protect heritage assets that New Zealand Rail planned to dispose of, especially heritage rolling stock, stations and other equipment.

The government wrote off NZ$1.08 billion in debt acquired by the company from the Railways Corporation (mainly for the electrification of the North Island Main Trunk, a Think Big project), and injected a further $300 million in capital. Fay, Richwhite and Company, financial advisers New Zealand Rail, argued the company had a better future with minimal debt.

Despite this capital injection, the company remained only marginally profitable, reporting after-tax profits of $36.2 million in 1992 and $18 million in 1993. The Railways Corporation retained ownership of the land beneath the railway tracks and yards, which New Zealand Rail paid $1 per year to lease.

New Zealand Rail re-branded, introducing a new logo similar to the Railways Corporation but with blue and yellow as colours instead of red and black, and a blue livery on locomotives, rolling stock and buildings.

New Zealand Rail
The Bolger National government, elected following the defeat of the fourth Labour government in elections held in October 1990, privatised New Zealand Rail Limited in 1993. The New Zealand Treasury supported privatisation of the company, even though it stated Fay Richwhite had an unfair advantage over other bidders. Business journalist Brian Gaynor stated that New Zealand Rail was an attractive investment because of its strong balance sheet.

The company was sold for $328.3 million to a consortium named Pylorus Investments Limited, shortly afterwards renamed Tranz Rail Limited. The sale was completed on 30 September 1993. The consortium was made up of Fay Richwhite (31.8% via the investment company Pacific Rail, later renamed Midavia Rail), the American railroad Wisconsin Central (27.3%), Berkshire Partners (27.3%), Alex van Heeren, the owner of Huka Lodge, 9.1% and Richwhite family interests, 4.5%. Tranz Rail Limited raised funds to buy New Zealand Rail by borrowing $223.3 million, and its shareholders contributed $105 million to the acquisition price through the purchase of 105 million Tranz Rail shares at $1 each.

In 1994 the company sold its 15% stake in Clear Communications for $72.6 million, $20.1 million above book value. The company had gained its shareholding by selling its fibre optic network along the North Island Main Trunk to Clear.

Rebranded Tranz Rail
New Zealand Rail carried its corporate brand until 18 October 1995, when Tranz Rail Limited was renamed Tranz Rail Holdings Limited and New Zealand Rail Limited was renamed Tranz Rail. On the same day Tranz Rail Holdings Limited made a $100 million capital repayment to the Fay Richwhite consortium, largely financed by the sale of shares in Clear Communications. The Tranz Rail brand was created by Wellington-based Cato Partners, who also designed brands for the divisions of Tranz Rail:

 * CityRail, urban rail commuter services in Auckland and Wellington, were renamed Tranz Metro
 * InterCity Rail, long-distance rail passenger services were renamed Tranz Scenic
 * RailFreight, rail freight services were renamed Tranz Link

The livery that resulted was nicknamed Cato blue by rail fans.

Initial Public Offering
Tranz Rail listed on 14 June 1996 on the New Zealand Sharemarket and NASDAQ. 31 million new shares, equivalent to 25% of the company, were issued to the public at $6.19. At the time of the Initial Public Offering (IPO), Tranz Rail had term loans debt of $300 million.

The share price reached $9.00 in the middle of 1997 due to the enthusiasm at the time for rail to have a revitalised future however the ongoing and unsustainable rail infrastructure costs were what failed the company in the end despite aggressive efforts to maintain a sustainable business. The rail traffic and extensive network were simply not sustainable to maintain by a private company in the long term even through Wisconsin Central Transportation were heavily invested in the future of the company. Some of the original Tranz Rail shareholders took advantage of the high share price to sell down their shares in the company. Berkshire Fund sold most of its shares at more than $8 each between November 1996 and March 1997. In 1998, Alex van Heeren sold his holding for a profit of more than $42 million, and the next year Fay Richwhite sold 6.2 million shares at an average $3.67 a share. On 8 February 2002, Fay Richwhite sold 17.6 million shares at $3.60 a share and Berkshire Fund sold 4.3 million shares on 12 February that year at the same price. The original investors made a $360 million profit from their investment.

TasRail investment
In partnership with Wisconsin Central as the Australian Transport Network, Tranz Rail invested in Tasmanian rail operator TasRail in 1997. From 1998, Tranz Rail sold twelve members of its DQ class and three QR class locomotives to TasRail. The locomotives were rebuilt at the Hutt Workshops. The DQ locomotives were originally imported by New Zealand Rail in 1995 from Queensland Rail as an alternative to buying new locomotives. In service, they proved unpopular with locomotive crews, due to excessive vibration and noise in their cabs.

The investment provided only marginal returns, and Toll later sold the TasRail shareholding to Pacific National, a Toll Holdings partnership with Patrick Corporation, in 2003.

Asset sales
In December 1996, Tranz Rail sold the DFT class of locomotives to the Chicago Freight Car Leasing Company for $131.5 million. It then leased the locomotives back for a period of 12 years. The lease ended on 19 December 2008 with the locomotives ownership returning to Tranz Rail's successor, KiwiRail.

Tranz Rail's chairman Ed Burkhardt resigned in August 1999 as a result of resigning as the chairman, CEO and president of Wisconsin Central. Industry insiders put this down to his preference to re-invest revenues rather than paying dividends to shareholders. Wisconsin's new board sold the company to the Canadian National Railway on 9 October 2001. Canadian National then put its 24% shareholding in Tranz Rail up for sale.

Tranz Rail also contracted out services which were previously provided in house. Alstom was contracted for locomotive servicing and took over the Hutt Workshops, while Transfield Services took over track maintenance.

In 2001, Tranz Rail sold 50% of Tranz Scenic to two directors of the Victoria, Australia rail operator West Coast Railway for $33 million. This sale included long-distance passenger rolling stock and ten diesel locomotives of the DC class, reclassified as the DCP class, and two EF class electric locomotives. In 2004 this share was purchased by Toll NZ, as one of the West Coast Railway directors had died and the business was not performing adequately.

On 24 December 2001, Tranz Rail sold the Auckland suburban rail network to the New Zealand Government for $81 million. In 2003 a competitive tender was held to find a new operator for the suburban passenger services, which Tranz Rail did not bid for. Connex (later renamed Transdev Auckland) won the contract, and took over Tranz Metro's Auckland operation from 23 August 2004.

Intermodal Transformation Project
Michael Beard became CEO of Tranz Rail in 2000 following the retirement of Dr Francis Small who had led the organisation from its SOE days into its first phase of privatisation. His policy was to focus on the rail freight operation, and sell any assets which were not core to this business, such as long-distance passenger trains (Tranz Scenic) and commuter services in Wellington and Auckland (Tranz Metro), partly because Tranz Rail was running out of cash to fund the rail network maintenance which it had spent over $900 million from 1993-2003. Beard also moved Tranz Rail's headquarters from the Wellington railway station to a new purpose-built office on the North Shore of Auckland, at a cost of $16 million. In 2000 a ministerial inquiry was formed to look into Tranz Rail's safety record, due to an unusually high number of work-related fatalities over the previous 12 months.

Beard introduced a "mode neutral" policy at the same time, as part of his "Intermodal Transformation Project". The project emphasised containerised freight over "marginal" freight, which Tranz Rail stopped carrying by rail. This led to accusations that Tranz Rail was intentionally moving freight off rail and onto roads. One of the reasons cited by Tranz Rail for these policies was the cost of using road transport to the company was less than that of using rail, because the road infrastructure is provided as a public good, whereas the rail network was a private good.

Roger Award
Tranz Rail won the Roger Award for The Worst Transnational Corporation operating in New Zealand on three occasions: 2000, 2001 and 2002, and was the first corporation inducted into the "hall of shame". The Awards came amidst critical reports of lax safety standards, inadequate maintenance, asset stripping and insider trading.

Takeover
In May 2002, Tranz Rail was delisted from the NASDAQ, as 70% of its shares were owned by New Zealanders and 16% Australians.

In May 2003, United States based RailAmerica made a takeover offer of 75c per share for Tranz Rail. The offer was later withdrawn when the share price dropped below 50c. In June 2003, the Government announced that it would buy back the rail network for $1 and purchase a 35% stake in the firm for $76 million (67c per share), which would have given it effective control of the company. The Government would have had the right to nominate three of the seven directors on the board. This met with approval from the Rail & Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) which had run a vigorous "Take Back The Track" campaign for the government to renationalise the railway network. The Rail Freight Action Group, which represents the interests of some of the biggest rail freight using companies, declared its support. Tranz Scenic, by then a separate company from Tranz Rail, did likewise.

Toll Holdings offer
In May 2003, the Australian transport firm Toll Holdings purchased a 6.1% share of Tranz Rail, increasing its share to 10.1% by June and 19.9% in July. Toll then launched its own takeover bid, initially offering 75c per share, later increased to 95c.

In July 2003, the Government announced that it was dropping its bid to buy a 35% stake in Tranz Rail, instead allowing Toll to succeed in its takeover bid. Toll's bid valued Tranz Rail at $231 million. The Government reached a Heads of Agreement with Toll later that month, and eventually bought the rail network for $1, plus $50 million for property assets including leases and Wellington railway station. The deal also established a performance regime creating incentives for Toll if it shifts freight from road to rail, and penalties if freight carriage falls below 70% of current levels. If Toll increases freight volumes by 10% or more on certain lines the Government will grant it a track access charge holiday. The parties agreed the Government would spend $200 million over the next five years upgrading the track via the New Zealand Railways Corporation, operating as ONTRACK.

Toll did not achieve the 90% stake of Tranz Rail it required to meet the Government's deal and compulsorily acquire the remaining 10% of shares, despite raising its offer again to $1.10 per share. In 2003, around 3,000 small shareholders held 25% of Tranz Rail's shares, many of them major institutional shareholders such as AMI and Infratil. After a number of extensions of the deadline set by Toll, it held 84.2% of shares in Tranz Rail after the offer closed in December 2003. By that time, shares were being sold on the New Zealand Sharemarket for $1.65, above even the independent valuation of between $1.34 and $1.62 made in July by merchant bankers Grant Samuel. Despite Toll not achieving the 90% requirement, the Government honoured the Heads of Agreement made in July.

In February 2004, Tranz Rail reported a $346 million loss for the half-year ended December 2003. In the same year, it carried 2.1 million tonnes of coal on the Midland line in the South Island. The departure of the former chief executive officer, Michael Beard, and six other top managers cost it $6 million in exit payments.

The company was renamed Toll NZ and did not retain any of the Tranz Rail directors. In May 2008, the New Zealand Government agreed to buy the rail and sea transport assets of Toll NZ Limited for $665 million. The government branded the new company KiwiRail.

Performance
The total number of tonnes transported by New Zealand Rail and Tranz Rail from 1995 increased between 1993 and 2003, peaking in 2000.

Rail freight volumes 19932003 (year ending 30 June):

Securities Commission investigation
In late 2004, the New Zealand Securities Commission launched an investigation into the company regarding alleged insider trading. In June 2007 David Richwhite (along with his shell company Midavia Rail, formerly Pacific Rail) agreed to pay NZ$20 million, but did not admit liability.

title: Tranz Rail


text:
Carl Laemmle Jr.

Carl Laemmle Jr. (born Julius Laemmle; April 28, 1908 – September 24, 1979) was an American film producer - studio executive and heir of Carl Laemmle, who had founded Universal Studios. He was head of production at the studio from 1928 to 1936.

Early life
Laemmle was born on April 28, 1908, in Chicago, the son of Carl Laemmle, the founder of Universal Pictures, and Recha Stern Laemmle, who died in 1919 when he was eleven years old. Carl Jr. had a sister Rosabelle, and a cousin Carla, an actress and dancer. His mother was buried in Salem Fields Cemetery, Glendale, New York. His family was Jewish, and during the 1930s Carl Laemmle Sr. assisted Jewish people in leaving Germany.

The Laemmle family shared a large New York City apartment located at 465 West End Avenue before moving to Los Angeles, California.

Career
During his tenure as head of production, beginning in 1928 in the early years of talkie movies, the studio had great success with films such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Dracula (1931), Waterloo Bridge (1931), Frankenstein (1931), East of Borneo (1931), A House Divided (1931), The Mummy (1932), The Old Dark House (1932), The Invisible Man (1933), Imitation of Life (1934), and Bride of Frankenstein (1935).

Laemmle (often referred to as "Junior") developed a reputation in this period for spending too much money on films that did not earn back their cost. By the end of 1935, Universal Studio had spent so much money, and had so many flops, that J. Cheever Cowdin offered to buy the Laemmles out. The notable success, both financially and critically, of the 1936 film Show Boat, was not enough to stem the downslide, and father and son were both forced out of the company. Neither worked on another film again, although Laemmle Jr. lived for 43 more years. Charles R. Rogers became the new head of production at the studio.

Personal life
Laemmle resided at 1641 Tower Grove Drive in Beverly Hills, California. He died from a stroke at the age of 71 on September 24, 1979, 40 years to the day of his father's death. He was buried in the Chapel Mausoleum at Home of Peace Cemetery.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Carl Laemmle Jr.


text:
Talk:Sender Policy Framework

Pre 2006 cleanup talk
Please add any new issues at the end. Omniplex 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Meng Weng Wong
The odd recent anon addition "Mang Wong who was maked" presumably relates to this Hungarian-language article. If someone can read Hungarian and write English, please fix the sentence to make sense (or eliminate if this is of no significance). -- Jmabel 20:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I can't read Hungarian, but at least I know what Meng's name is; changed. Marnanel 21:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

ID
It would be very nice if your introduction to SPF explained how "receivers that implement SPF will know to ignore the message". If the SPF server publishes machine IDs what keeps the spammer from obtaining those IDs as an SPF client and abusing them?

 * Abusing them in what way? Marnanel 13:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Apparently a confusion of ID and IP, should be clear now. Omniplex 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

this needs correction
SPF does *not* (by itself) validate From addresses -- not the ones you see in your e-mail messages. It validates the "mail from" header in the SMTP protocol itself, which isn't traditionally passed on to MUAs. Basically, the MTA needs to do the work (at least the initial work).

 * done Omniplex 04:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

dns records?
Aren't there dns records involved as well? Yes there are. SPF-record are entered as txt-record

Who's Steve Bellovin? Why should I care what he thinks about SPF? If you're a spammer, you should care, as he is making a statement to not believe the hype, and give spammers every chance to bore us with yet another useless viagra-pill.

Can anyone remove the controversy part? It is bogus, old and debunked.

RE: I also could not care less who Steve B. is, but I really want to know how to implement in Sendmail. "Sendmail" you know, the most used mailer in Internet, and NO SINGLE match in google on www.sendmail.org, WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.92.62 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sendmail cannot directly implement SPF because its ruleset language, M4, lacks the appropriate functional capability. However, there are many milters (add-ons) for Sendmail which can and/or do implement SPF.  2001:470:D:468:7455:7A:1C17:3DB4 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Aren't there dns records involved as well? Yes there are. SPF-record are entered as DNS SPF-RRs where supported, and TXT-RRs otherwise (deprecated). RFC 4408 makes it clear that the use of TXT-RRs for SPF data was meant as a temporary measure until it received it's own resource record type, for which the IANA acted in 2006 by assigning type 99 to SPF-RRs. 71.106.210.230 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

BGP=?
Say what BGP stands for. If giving a link, still say it too. 210.200.105.231 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Removed, BGP is about routing IP packets, not about routing mail. SMTP is two protocol layers above IP (SMTP over TCP over IP). Omniplex 05:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Depreciated --> Deprecated
I'm new here, so not sure if I need to bother explaining (or if this is the right place to do it) but I just changed the 'depreciated' in 'principles of operation' to 'deprecated'. Its a common mis-type, so presumably that's what the original author meant, but since the words actually have different meanings, I wanted to leave some clarification on my one-character-edit. Depreciation is the tendancy for assests to decline in value. Deprecation is a declaration that a previously favoured or standard practice is now discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dufos (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you it was NOT a typo. As the author, I wrote depreciated, as in to lessen in value over time. You should never presume over what someone else has written. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

cleanup done
This article had had a "cleanup" tag for over a year. Since the tag was added, the article has had scores of edits and been completely transformed. I don't know why no one removed the cleanup tag, but I did. Herostratus 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition to this, I just fixed up a part where it said "major ISPs (MSN, Yahoo, AOL, etc.)" to "some major email service providers". This was to fix two problems: using "ISP" to denote these companies is misleading in the context of an email issue (One needn't be a MSN subscriber to have an MSN email), and, the fact that the paragraph goes on from there to list that both MSN and AOL have actually adopted forms of SPF. I have a feeling the information was simply dated, and no one wanted to fix the context.

 * in the common usage, "email service provider" often refers to entities that primarily send bulk mail, as opposed to those that send and receive balanced amounts mail. I'm not convinced that ESP is better than ISP. --Elvey 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No honest criticism of SPF in the article.
It is a fact that vast majority of spam originates from malware-hijacked ("zombie") home user and corporate desktops, which have ample bandwidht via ADSL, CATV or leased line. Sorrowfully, SPF does not protect against this at all, because SPF makes the false assumption that spammers use their own systems to send junk mail. No, they do not, they use malware to hijack others' for this purpose.

 * In practice spammers are forced to rotate through a large number of sender addresses. This is because using the sender address of the owner of the compromised machine in conjunction with the smtp relay server allocated to that user doesn't work very well because the provider of the relay server quickly blocks that user. That provider doesn't want his relay server blacklisted (un-blacklisting incurs a fine) so he tends to be careful to monitor his users carefully. So the mailbot is forced to directly deliver email. Directly delivering mail without using a legitimite relay means being forced to use sender addresses that do not have SPF records. This is what happens in practice - well at least as was the state of spam in 2009-2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * In practice, spammers steal other people's email passwords, and then simply run the account into the ground and send a ton of spam with it. Sure the account gets nuked fairly quickly, but an initial large batch of spam still gets sent out.  And if the account is one that's used to send out legitimate bulk email, so it can't be auto-disabled due to email frequency, it can and WILL be used to send out a truly frightening about of spam if it's password is guessed.  Additionally it harms the reputation of the company who employs the person who's email got compromised. 2601:204:300:46C0:48F9:9FC8:2470:AB1B (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Read this and be afraid, as this is almost as bad as Skynet:

Cryptographic SpamThru TrojanProxy Installs Own AV Scanner to Kill Competition

Therefore SPF is already useless and obsolete! Must write about it in the article. 195.70.32.136 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to see some backup for this fact. Not having seen any, I believe that a significant portion of spam does not come from hijacked computers.

 * But what does that have to do with SPF effectiveness? SFP helps me, the recipient, identify the sender.  If mail is from a stranger, I can give it less respect than if it comes from someone I trust.  I apply much more stringent spam filtering to mail from strangers.  The hijacked computer almost certainly belongs to someone as strange to me as the spammer who hijacked it.  Bryan Henderson 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * SPF makes no such assumption. The point of SPF is not to stop spam, it is to positively identify legitimate mail, whether it is solicited or not.  If SPF says the mail is from example.com, then the mail really is from example.com, whether it's spam or not.  If you don't want mail from example.com, that's a different problem which SPF does not rectify.

 * The value of SPF is that spoofed mail can be rejected without even scanning the body. If example.com implements SPF and someone sends mail on behalf of example.com, there's no need to deliver the mail at all.  It can be rejected immediately or silently dropped without repercussion.  This protects example.com from spam delivered by bounce, and it protects example.com from accusations of spamming.  Certainly example.com can send mail from hosts which are not theirs, but if they implement SPF they can have zero expectation of it being delivered to any recipients whose SMTP servers also implement SPF.

 * If example.com implements SPF and sends spam from their own servers, recipients have a means of fighting back with non-technical measures.

 * That is ALL that SPF offers, and it's a huge step forward over what we've got now. Crag 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to an article with some criticisms of SPF, and a quick Google search found a number of others. However, what I really wanted to say is that while some domains are using SPF to delay or refuse mail, and a large number of domains are publishing some sort of SPF records (generally TXT, actual SPF DNS records are still pretty rare), SPF as a whole seems to be dead, because of its flaws and because so much old software would not be able to cope with it (MUAs, list software, etc.) I'm not sure how much verifiable evidence I'd have to drag up to publish something like that, though.

SPF doesn't do much to reduce general spam because most spammers these days are using throwaway or mismanaged domains, and because they can rely on people not to read the email headers anyway (i.e. the huge success of spearphishing, where people happily comply with a demand to mail their password, date of birth, and SSN to an ISP in China.)

 * SPF does a lot to prevent my email address from being used by spammers. And this is extremely useful to me. The purpose of SPF is not to identify or block spam. However, in practice it does help spam filters considerably because they have extra information by which to classify email.

Aliza250 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Sender Policy Framework (SPF), as defined in RFC 4408, is an e-mail validation system designed to prevent e-mail spam by addressing a common vulnerability, source address spoofing. I believe that the introduction sentence is a bit misleading as it says that it's "designed to prevent e-mail spam". I would suggest that it is a tool used in helping with spam. At it's best, it resolves address spoofing - nothing more. It helps us validate that the e-mail is coming from who they say it is. However, as addressed by other editors, it does not give any confidence that the sending domain is someone you actually want mail from. SPF is a very fast filtering method, much faster then hieuristic type filtering. So we use it at the very front end to reject all e-mail that fails SPF. But an SPF pass does not give it a green light past the other SPAM filtering technologies we also use. One of the most notable changes I saw after widespread SPF adoption was that phishing e-mails no longer came from the actual company domain, but had to come from a different address. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SPF does not prevent spoofing or forgery. It is typical for the email-addresses referencing SPF records to not be user visible, whether representing the return path or PRA. Even SPF records ending with "-all" seldom are refused because of the high associated path registration failure rates with this protocol. SPF was able to obtain rapid support from various sender organizations because it holds a different entity accountable and not those making a profit emitting questionable email in bulk. Even the Authentication-Results header for SPF fails to capture the only weakly authenticated identity within the exchange, the source IP address that might identify the bulk sender.

SPF was never intended as an "anti-spam" tool. Spam is a transmitter/recipient issue since spam is always defined as transmitting messages unwanted by recipients. Spam need not be forged. Forged messages need not be spam. It is also important to keep in mind that most consider the From header field to represent the originator of the message and will seldom even view the return path. Authenticating the MTA and assessing their reputation represents an effective method for dealing with spam. It would never be safe to impose reputations on domains that authorize shared MTAs so they will receive Non-Delivery Notifications. Few common providers will ensure their unique use of a return path. Doug.otis (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DoS Attack
The link concerning DOS attacks of SPF (to the Internet Foundation) doesn't seem to work. I presume that it did indeed work at some point in history, but that the foundation has removed it (OR, that the intial user was mistaken in including the link). I'll wait a day, if no-one does anything about it, might as well remove the DOS attacks link.

KnasterTarski

 * The draft expired on December 26th. Doug Otis has not resubmitted it to the IETF.  Wrs1864 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Refactoring this (talk) page I moved an older complaint about DDoS FUD below as subsection. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

rvv 112 FUD
Crappy 112 lookups vandalism removed again, same procedure as in E-mail authentication and before in DomainKeys. Omniplex  10:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While the DOS draft should have included explicit examples, this does not mean recipient resources can't be abused. Unfortunately, due to problems of blocked access leading to support calls, often recipients override SOA minimum field requested negative caching durations by imposing shorter maximum values.

Windows 2000 supports negative caching as specified in RFC2308, but with the modification of imposing low maximum limits. Negative responses are held for the number of seconds specified in the NegativeCacheTime value with a default limit of 300 seconds. The value of NegativeCacheTime can be set to 0. However, it can not be greater than 15 minutes. For Windows 2008, the dnscmd supports /maxnegativecachettl with a default of 10 minutes. Bind 8 and 9 also provide global max-ncache-ttl to limit negative caching. Cisco offers similar methods to limit negative caching using the command dns set max-negcache-ttl that defaults to 1 hour.

My involvement in the MARID WG dramatically reduced the potential number of DNS transactions permitted for SPF processing, with the exception of correcting the local-part macro issue. IMHO, only direct server authentication is practical and safe. With the introduction of NAT64 and other transport translation techniques, IP addresses as a basis to authorize a server no longer suits the Internet environment. Cryptographic methods are now urgently needed. Doug.otis (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Will SPF Cause Spammers Not To Send Mail?
I deleted a sentence saying an advantage of SPF is that spammers won't send email with SPF-detectable spoofed origin because it would be wasteful, since the receiver would just delete it. I've seen no evidence that spammers go out of their way to avoid sending mail that will get deleted. The spam phenomenon is based on the fact that it costs roughly zero to send an email. If someone can provide evidence to the contrary, I would accept such a suggestion in the article. Bryan Henderson 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

 * YMMV, but I've seen some evidence in my inbox back in 2004, the difference between about 1000 bounces per day vs. none is quite notable with a V.90 account. Other folks also reported that "their" spammers (i.e. somebody forging their addresses) gave up some time after they published a FAIL policy. I've also heard two reliable reports where publishing a FAIL policy didn't help much so far, but one of these two reports is from a top anti-spammer worldwide, the spammers could deliberately ignore his FAIL policy. For the "day job" of a spammer, get unsolicited crap to unhappy receivers, forging FAIL protected addresses is just a bad idea, and spammers today are not as stupid as they used to be five years ago, they know this. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible
"An SPF PASS result from unknown strangers still guarantees that auto-replies like error messages (bounces) cannot hit innocent bystanders." doesn't make sense. Removing as I can't figure out what the author(s) want to say, and some of the bit I understand appears to be incorrect. Some things that can be said: SPF doesn't prevent bounces to innocent bystanders; innocent bystanders with SPF records still receive bounces. If they know what IPs are legitimate sources for mail 'from' their domain, then they can filter the bounces they get, but with a significant, but often considered acceptable (about 1 in 20, in my experience) false positive rate. SPF is a handy way to obtain this list of IPs. When mail from innocent bystanders with SPF records bounces, the bounces generally don't have an SPF PASS result. Happy to see a replacement sentence reappear.--Elvey 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, I tried to explain it again below where you or somebody else mentioned the idea to treat any PASS favorably, because that's beside the point. Look at it from a receiver's POV, you get tons and tons of mail, above 90% are spam. You have to decide to accept or reject mail fast, because (1) RFC 2821 won't let you take ages for this decision, it has a timeout of a few minutes, (2) senders might not give you the complete time for a decision permitted by RFC 2821, they could give up and try again later if you are too slow, (3) you have only mumble - say 40,000 - ports for simultaneous SMTP sessions. Therefore time-consuming spam checks in the SMTP session are an obstacle for professional e-mail service providers. If they accept the mail and it turns out to be suspicious and/or undeliverable later, they are in the known RFC 2821 dilemma, if it was legit they MUST send a bounce, but if it was spam the bounce is backscatter. After a PASS they can be sure that it is no backscatter. After a PASS they have as much time as they need to analyze attached pictures or other expensive checks, this could be on another box or by a third party. Even if it is spam they have a license to bounce, the PASS, and they are not tempted or forced to drop potentially legit mail. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejecting mail
SPF does NOT explicitly RECOMMEND or REQUIRE message rejection, even on SPF FAIL. Instead, it says things like "In order to prevent the circumvention of SPF records, rejecting E-Mail from invalid domains should be considered." and "The checking software can choose to mark the mail based on this or to reject the mail outright." Perhaps it would be useful to address this and explain why it's the case.--Elvey 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 * SPF explicitly RECOMMENDs an SMTP status code for receivers deciding to reject FAIL. For various reasons it does not say what receivers "should" decide, receivers are free to do what they like, the complete SPF design is intentionally voluntary. Clearly silently discarding FAIL would be a bad idea for the reasons mentioned in the article. So if receivers check SPF during SMTP as RECOMMENDed in the specification, and then don't reject FAIL, they are, hm, is mistaken the correct adjective when talking about Gmail? <gd&r> Seriously, it is possible to check SPF after SMTP, and at that point in time receivers can't reject a FAIL anymore. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I think you are incorrect; you assume spammers won't set up +all SPF records (or SPF records approving the hosts they decide to send spam from, e.g. their botnet or proxies). If they do, you can't assume that it's safe to bounce email sent that gets a PASS due to such a record. If the spammers control the SPF records, they control the MX records (presumably of a throwaway domain); they could point them at the servers of innocent bystanders.  --Elvey (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Should a pass that results due to the "+all" mechanism be handled differently than other passing declarations? I say yes, and I specifically check all passing records for the mechanism that triggered the determination. When I find that it was a "+all" (the plus sign being optional), I specifically reject any such attempted mail for local policy reasons (with extended code "5.7.9 Mechanism too weak"). To prevent spammers from constructing alternatives to "+all", one should also consider rejecting ALL matching CIDR-using mechanisms where the CIDR bitmask indicates fewer than 8 significant bits used in the address. There is no single (mailable) organization that controls any continuous address space of "*/7" or less, either in IPv4 or IPv6. 71.106.210.230 (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Adoption is more than just publishing SPF records. How 'bout a table: The rows would contain the largest senders and receivers, e.g. senderbase.org's Top Senders by Domain is a good start. Columns would include: Publishes SPF records for its domains. Treats SPF PASS significantly favorably. Rejects (or discards or shunts to a spam folder) on SPF FAIL. Complies with SRS. --Elvey 16:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

e.g.

From page 2, perhaps: arcor-ip.net ono.com hotmail.com tiscali.it net24.it mtu-net.ru brasiltelecom.net.br btcentralplus.com prod-infinitum.com.mx shawcable.net blueyonder.co.uk auna.net ntl.com qwest.net google.com netvision.net.il ocn.ne.jp asianet.co.th messagelabs.com aol.com, outblaze and other large receivers that don't send much bulk mail are needed too.

 * Getting reliable statistics or reliable info about SPF practises is hard for several reasons. E.g. Gmail does various things with SPF, but they don't reject FAIL, and they don't publish a FAIL policy. They check SPF (visible in Received-SPF headers) and they publish a PASS policy. GMX, a huge mail provider in Germany, rejects FAIL if users want this by enabling the corresponding option for their account. They publish a simple PASS or FAIL policy.
 * Treating PASS favorably is a bad idea, a PASS from unknown strangers means almost nothing, spammers are perfectly able to publish SPF policies for domains under their control. They can't publish policies for other domains, IOW they can't get a PASS for addresses in your or my domains (unless they actually send from our domains, if they turned some of our boxes into zombies). A PASS from unknown strangers is no waste of time, receivers can accept PASSing mail on probation. For a PASS they can send a bounce later without fearing to cause backscatter, or to drop legit mail. Even if the PASS was for spamming zombie in our domains, it's our job to fix it, we should get the bounce. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and in my scoring system, pass gets 0, while neutral gets 1, none gets 2, and softfail gets 4 points (toward spaminess and/or lack-of-trust). An SPF hard failure and errors are rejected by the MTA at "MAIL FROM" and therefore never reach the scoring system, and neither does a pass which is "+all" or based on a CIDR mask of less than 8 significant bits, especially as spammers are likely to want to include the entire IP address space (either IPv4 or IPv6) as their authorized source.  Although there is only one occurance of two consecutive IPv4 /8 assignments controlled by the same entity, those spaces do not form a /7. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Some solved problems
Three minor solved problems collected in one section. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation
SPF shouldn't redirect here...I was looking for info on what it means in relation to suntan lotions 146.243.4.157 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The disambiguation works as it should now, I hope you found the "sun protection factor" last year ;-) --217.184.142.58 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing page link seems 2B dead now
do they take money for that too now?

no, yo only mustn't press enter, but click with the mouse. Mifritscher (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Whatever you're talking about, it sounds like you solved your problem. There are lots of testing pages, if something isn't as it should be report it to their webmasters, or if you want to discuss it here please add a link. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was considering reverting this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sender_Policy_Framework&diff=next&oldid=252814931 but aside from the linkspam question, the myiptest tester DOESN'T WORK! It gives incorrect results.--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Garbled sentence
Under Mechanisms/EXISTS, is the following garbled sentence:

Does anybody have any clue what this is supposed to be saying? One possible re-writing would be to turn it into:

but I'm not sure that's the intent of what was originally written. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Okay, done (disclosure: IIRC this was my fault). This is a Wiki, be bold and fix anything that's too far in the direction of a manual. --217.184.142.58 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained stuff
This is a very technical article. Even as a linux hobbyist for me it is very hard to read. In the Principles of Operation it is explained in very broad terms that it is a method of rejecting email based on the sender address. I would like more details on what is involved. How is it accomplished. Especially since just after that it suddenly becomes very technical and uses terms that haven't been explained previously. What is SPF PASS and SPF FAIL? "Spammers can send emails with SPF PASS result" - What does this mean? Why is it bad? "The main benefit of SPF.." - Potentially a good paragraph here, but the sentence "If such people use SPF to specify their legitimate sending IPs with a FAIL result for all other IPs" is not easy to understand. I guess it means that you can specify in the policy somehow to APPROVE these IP's and DENY all others, am I right? As a side note, an explanation of what is "The main benefit.." of this system should be further up on the page in my opinion. "SPF does not allow plain message forwarding." - What does this mean? And what does it mean to publish an SPF fail policy. A lot of terms again are used without explanation. Needs major cleanup work. Andersa (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is really challenging to explain while being precise and accurate without using something such as a definition section. Would that help?--Elvey (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'll put it simply: SPF is anti-forgery technology.  Spam is a content issue.  These are completely separate characteristics.  Not all forgeries are spam.  Not all spam are forgeries.  Therefore, receiving spam with SPF status of "pass" means that one is certain that the origin (source IP address) was in fact under spammer control. 71.106.209.107 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is an analogy which may help. If I was to send you a regular physical letter through the post office, I would place a return address on it. Now in reality I could put whatever I want on there. I could put, President of the United States with a return address of the White House. The US Post Office will deliver the message, as they do not perform any sort of sender verification. This has been one of the problems with e-mail spam, people pretending that they're someone else -- such as your bank. With SPF, the administrators of the domain (such as @citibank.com) can specify exactly which servers on the internet should be permitted to send e-mail from @citibank.com. IF both Citibank and your e-mail provider was to implement SPF -- then you could be assured that e-mail which says it's coming from Citibank.com is really coming from them, and that someone else who is trying to pretend that they're from Citibank will have their e-mail rejected as SPAM. Now as the article goes into further detail, this is not the only source/reason for spam, but is only just one of them. Also, technically we're validating the MAIL FROM, instead of the FROM address you see in your mail program. But that's on a technical level. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I think the first section is it now stands is an excellent overview of what SPF is. To be fair, I know SMTP and related matters quite well, so it's hard for me to identify which phrasing may seem too technical to others. I'd like to thank the people who have worked on making it this useful. 66.16.55.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Shortcomings
Might be worth adding a section on the shortcomings of SPF. Controversy does already cover some of this, though.

1: The forwarding issue is the real killer. Business users expect to be able to forward messages. They do not expect to have to rewrite such messages from scratch. Yet, directly forwarded messages with unmodified headers will always fail SPF. Some mailservers claim to offer a fix for this, eg MDAemon, but when I tested such a proffered solution it just caused mail loops, and had to be turned off. Because of the forwarding issue, SPF is rarely used in hardfail mode.

2: SPF was introduced before the mobile computing boom, and has poor compatibility with situations where senders are typically forced to use a number of different smarthosts to send mail, according to which data carrier their mobile device is simlocked-to. For larger outfits running their own mailserver this can be worked-around by forcing all mail to go through the central server, but for smaller outfits with no central IT, the change of source IP address with carrier is a serious problem.

3: SPF is a domain-wide solution, and hence cannot be activated in hardfail mode for one user whose address is being forged by spammers, without also causing potential loss of valid messages from other users. --Anteaus (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sender Policy Framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100129195805/http://www.emailmanual.co.uk:80/index.php/2009/05/why-should-i-implement-a-spf-record-on-my-domain to http://www.emailmanual.co.uk/index.php/2009/05/why-should-i-implement-a-spf-record-on-my-domain/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

broken link
The link http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_Senders_BCP_Ver2a-updated.pdf in

is broken, the document appears to have been replaced by https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/document/M3AAWG_Hosting_Abuse_BCPs-2015-03.pdf.

How to proceed?

Chaotix63 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

re: broken link
I added a link to the revised "Best Common Practices" PDF, but did not remove the old broken one. And did not add the link you mention. Feel free to tidy up! cheers -- Rick Rleir (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

David Green
The article currently has "Dana Valerie Lank (née Green)", and formerly had "Dana Valerie Lank (previously D. Green)". But the sources have "David Green".

 * 1) Do we have any evidence that these names do refer to the same person?
 * 2) If they are the same person, are we being overly sensitive about the change from a seemingly masculine name to a seemingly feminine one?  (I say "seemingly", because I've been caught out by French names before: "Jean Marie" seems feminine to an Anglophone ... oops)
 * 3) The construction "Dana Valerie Lank (née Green)" indicates a previous name "Dana Valerie Green", which also doesn't match the sources.  Perhaps the name has changed twice, from David Green to Dana Valerie Green to Dana Valerie Lank?

I would like to propose some wording that doesn't make the reader go "WTH?". We could use "Dana Valerie Lank (writing as David Green)". It was good enough for George Eliot.

This isn't a biography; for the purposes of attribution we don't need to wonder why a person goes by two different names.

Pelagic (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I transitioned MtF around 2011, changing my name from David to Dana. I am thankful that you are using "née Green", and omitting my given first name. I only wish the spec could be changed, but that's life I guess. My current name is Dana Valerie Reese.

DanaValerie (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"&spf=" url parameter
There seems to be a completely unrelated computer usage of "spf". Google is currently tacking on "&spf=" parameters to search urls. Please add a link from this article to some info about this other usage of the term.-71.174.186.57 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming: should conform with DMARC and DKIM

 * The SPF page is called: "Sender Policy Framework" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework)
 * The DKIM page is called: "DomainKeys Identified Mail" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail)
 * The DMARC page is called: "DMARC" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC)

We should pick one "standard" and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.91.199 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sender Policy Framework


text:
Ceephax Acid Crew

Andrew David Jenkinson, known professionally as Ceephax Acid Crew, is a British electronic musician and record producer who works primarily in the acid house and drum and bass subgenres. Jenkinson is also known simply by the pseudonym Ceephax, which is a reference to the BBC teletext service Ceefax. He is the younger brother of Squarepusher (Tom Jenkinson).

Music and career
Jenkinson became interested in music at 12 years old when he would go into his brother's room and play his brother's SH-101. He started a rock band called "C-Fax", and kept the name for his later performances.

Ceephax's music from 1997 to 2002 and beyond used mainly vintage (especially Roland) drum machines and synthesizers such as the TB-303. This music was often recorded onto a cassette tape deck. The music was released on vinyl records and cassette tape on underground record labels, such as Breakin' Records, Lo Recordings, and Firstcask. This primitive acid house aesthetic and methodology countered the growing popularity of the computer music and compact disc releases of the time. Rephlex Records and Warp Records also released Jenkinson's remixes of Squarepusher around this time.

From 2003 onwards, as well as his more typical acid style, he has also released drum and bass songs made on old samplers, an Amiga, and various early digital synthesizers. His set on Mary Anne Hobbs' show Breezeblock in 2003, and more tracks such as "Castilian" and "Arcadian" also indicate an interest in Chiptune music.

From 2007 onwards, he has had full releases on the record labels Rephlex and Planet Mu. He also continues to release on Firstcask and other independent labels such as WéMè, Bugklinik, and his own label, Waltzer. Ceephax's live shows are set apart from the popular laptop style of live electronic performance by exclusively using only analogue and early digital equipment and occasionally an Amiga computer. Frequently used hardware includes TB-303, TR-909, TR-707, SH-101, Kenton Pro-2000, and Yamaha RS7000. These sets range from old school house, acid house, techno, drum and bass, and gabber. He has also produced several music videos, predominantly using old video equipment and early computer animation.

Albums

 * Untitled (FSK005) with Drive Time bonus cassette - Firstcask (2000)
 * Exidy Tours (as Ceephax) - Firstcask (2003)
 * Ceephax Acid Crew - Breakin' Records (2003)
 * Ceephax Acid Crew Part One - Breakin' Records (2003)
 * Ceephax Acid Crew Part Two - Breakin' Records (2003)
 * Ceephax Presents "Acid Travelator" - Funbox Records (2006)
 * Volume One - Rephlex Records (2007)
 * Volume Two - Rephlex Records (2007)
 * Drive Time LP (as Ceephax) - Firstcask (2008)
 * Ceeland - Waltzer (2009)
 * United Acid Emirates - Planet Mu (2010)
 * Live - Waltzer (2011)
 * Cro Magnox - WéMè (2013)
 * Essex Spacebin OST (as Andy Jenkinson) - Waltzer (2017)
 * Camelot Arcade - WéMè (2018)
 * Acid Cask Trilogy - (2019)
 * Box Steady - Waltzer (2021)
 * Baddow Moods (2022)

EPs and singles

 * Radiotin EP - Breakin' Records (1998)
 * Bainted Smile EP - Breakin' Records (1998)
 * Acid Quakers 1000 (as Ceephax) - Lo Recordings (2000)
 * Acid Legacy EP - Breakin' Records (2003)
 * Hardcore Wick/Acid Varsity Speciale - Firstcask (2006)
 * Hardcore Esplanade - Bug Klinik Records (2006)
 * The Crisp Chronicles - WeMe Records (2006)
 * Ceerial Port EP - Firstcask (2006)
 * Megalift EP - Planet Mu (2007)
 * Wild Westie - Kitchen Dweller Records (2008)
 * Psychtapolis - WeMe Records (2010)
 * The Unstoppable Phax Machine - 030303 Records (2011)
 * Capsule In Space/Mediterranean Acid - WALTZER (2012)
 * World Dissolver EP - WALTZER (2013)
 * Charismatic Integrity Slam EP - WALTZER (2015)
 * Acid Fourniture EP - WEME (2017)
 * Byron's Ballads EP - WEME (2017)
 * Fossil Funk EP - WALTZER (2018)

Remixes

 * "Bioslate (Every Time Mix)" and "Bioslate (Tarzan Mix)" on Remixes 12" by Squarepusher (1998)
 * "Ceephax Mix" on Selection Sixteen by Squarepusher (1999)
 * "Sho U Rite (Ceephax Remix)" on Kerrier District 2 (2006)

title: Ceephax Acid Crew


text:
Rawlins Lowndes

Rawlins Lowndes (January 6, 1721 – August 24, 1800) was an American lawyer, planter and politician who became involved in the patriot cause after his election to South Carolina's legislature, although he opposed independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. Lowndes served as president/governor of South Carolina during the American Revolutionary War, and after the war opposed his state's ratification of the Constitution of the United States because it would restrict the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Lowndes also served as a state legislator and mayor of Charleston before his death. Two of his sons, Thomas and William Lowndes, would serve in the U.S. Congress.

Early and family life
Lowndes was born on the island of St. Kitts in the British West Indies in January 1721, the third son of British merchant Charles Lowndes and his wife, the former Ruth Rawlins (rom a locally important family). His father resigned from the St. Kitts legislature in 1731 and moved his young family and slaves to Charleston, South Carolina. However, he committed suicide five years later, distraught over failed investments. His eldest son, William Lowndes, returned to St. Kitts with his widowed mother, married in 1739 and became a local legislator like many maternal relatives. His younger sons remained in South Carolina and were placed in the care of the provost marshal (local sheriff), Robert Hall. The elder, Charles Lowndes, was then 17, and after finishing his education under Hall's direction, became a planter in Colleton County, South Carolina. He would also marry and serve briefly as its provost marshal (after his younger brother Rawlins as discussed below) before his death in 1763. Hall trained Rawlins as a lawyer, and when the provost marshal died in 1740 the local bar recommended that only a temporary successor be named, in order that Rawlins Lowndes could become Hall's permanent successor as provost marshal when he reached legal age two years later, noting that in 1725 the post had been granted by the proprietors of Carolina to his uncle Thomas Lowndes of Westminster, his heirs and assigns, and that when the Crown succeeded to the proprietors' rights, that grant was renewed, although Thomas Lowndes never left England but assigned it to others.

Career
Upon reaching the legal age of 21, Lowndes was appointed as the Provost-Marshal of South Carolina. He served in this role for ten years, from 1742 to 1752. His success as a lawyer, and through favorable marriages discussed below, led him to acquire large plantations on the Ashley, Combahee and Santee Rivers, which he farmed using enslaved labor.

Upon resigning as provost-marshal Lowndes won election to the Royal Assembly, the colonial legislature, and rose to become its Speaker, as well as "justice of the quorum", in which capacity he ordered a printer freed who had been imprisoned on order of the governor and council. However, Lowndes resigned his legislative position upon receiving a royal appointment as associate justice for the colony in 1766. In that position, he declared the Stamp Act unlawful, against common rights and thus unenforceable before his court. This displeased the colony's chief judge, Gordon, who brought charges against Lowndes before the governor and council, but Lowndes was acquitted unanimously. Nonetheless, upon receiving a letter from Attorney General Simpson (who shortly thereafter returned to England), the governor removed Lowndes from his judicial office in early 1775. Nonetheless, when Judge Gordeon was shortly thereafter reassigned to Jamaica, Lowndes received an appointment as South Carolina's Chief Justice.

During his years as a South Carolina political leader, Lowndes became a guiding force in South Carolina’s revolutionary government. In June 1775, the Provincial Congresses appointed Lowndes to the Committee of Safety together with Henry Laurens, Charles Pinckney and ten other men. In September, 1775, the last royal governor Lord William Campbell, fled to a warship in the harbor after refusing to recognize the provincial Congress, which declared the colony's independence 6 months later, in March 1776. By that time, John Rutledge was president of the senate, and Lowndes became a member of the legislative council.

Lowndes became a member of the First and Second Provincial Congresses, the First and Second General Assemblies, and South Carolina's First and Second Committee of Safety. In 1776, Lowndes was one of eleven committee members charged with the responsibility of writing a draft constitution for South Carolina.

Despite his involvement in challenging increasingly harsh British measures leading up to the American Revolution, Lowndes opposed armed rebellion and independence from Britain.

On March 7, 1778 South Carolina General Assembly elected Lowndes President of South Carolina. He succeeded John Rutledge (and would also be succeeded by Rutledge). Lowndes approved major changes to the state constitution on March 19, 1778, despite Rutledge's prior veto. The first changed the title of South Carolina’s chief executive from "president" to "governor". Other major changes removed the governor’s power to veto legislation, created a Senate elected via popular election, and disestablished the Church of England in South Carolina. By this time, the conflict had reached South Carolina (and Lowndes' plantations had been raided, once causing him to yoke oxen to his carriage, all his horses having been carried off). Lowndes cooperated with General Benjamin Lincoln and also ordered a general embargo of the former colony's ports, forbidding any vessels from leaving.

After serving as President of South Carolina, Lowndes was elected to the South Carolina Senate from St. Bartholomew's parish (which he had previously represented in the lower house), then won election and re-election to the House of Representatives in 1787 representing Charleston (St. Philip's and St. Michael's parishes) until 1790, when he decided against running for re-election after the capital was moved to Columbia. As assemblyman in 1788, Lowndes strenuously opposed the motion to accept the federal Constitution. He spoke four times in the 3-day debate, particularly opposing the clauses giving Congress power to regulate commerce, restricting the trans-Atlantic slave trade after 1808; and to the centralization of power which would accrue to the federal government. However, he refused to stand for election to the state's convention debating the federal Constitution, which was adopted by a 140 vote to 73 vote margin. During the same period, Lowndes became intendant (mayor) of Charleston, from September 1788 to September 1789.

Personal life
Rawlins Lowndes himself married three times. His first marriage, on August 15, 1748, was to Amarinthia Elliott, daughter of Thomas Elliot of Rantoules plantation on the Stono River, but she died in January 1750. Lowndes next married Mary Cartwight of Charleston on December 23, 1751, and they had ten children, several of which died as children. His sons Thomas (b. 1766) and William (b. 1782) would both follow their father's careers as lawyers, legislators and planters. Three daughters lived to marry and two had children: Amarintha Lowndes Sanders Champney, Harriett Lowndes Brown and Sarah-Ruth Lowndes Brown. Rawlins Lowndes' final marriage was to Sarah Jones, the mother of William Jones Lowndes; the widow only survived her husband by months, dying in a carriage accident while riding with her son, who survived.

Death and legacy
Lowndes died in Charleston, South Carolina, on August 24, 1800.

title: Rawlins Lowndes


text:
Talk:Directive 2005/36/EC

Number of countries
I updated the term "fifteen countries of the EU" to twenty-five, on the basis that European directives automatically apply to the 10 new EU members also.

I may be wrong.

Zoney 20:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You're not wrong. However, there are a few exceptions, but these exceptions apply not to these directives. 86.56.0.159 11:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

May not apply within countries
I don't have a specific reference, but as I understant it, the directive does not apply to mobility within a country, for example a lawyer moving from England to Scotland. Psnae 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * See purely internal situation in Reverse discrimination (EU law). Kaihsu (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

New directive
A new European Directive, sweeping up 89/48 and 92/51 came into effect in the second half of 2006 - the entry needs updating (-))... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.110.56 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Added features of 2018 are there or transverse if so then what's new if not what are modified please KAN121786 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Brexit
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/professional-qualifications/brexit/index_en.htm

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/services/free-movement-professionals/recognition-professional-qualifications-practice/recognition-professional-qualifications-acquired-united-kingdom-european-union-nationals_en

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9172/

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/get-your-eu-professional-qualification-recognised-in-the-uk Kaihsu (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Directive 2005/36/EC


text:
Category:Poets by nationality

Poets by nationality.

title: Category:Poets by nationality


text:
Talk:Damar (Star Trek)

Votes for deletion
This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen 64 22:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Name
The name used for the page is non-canon. Shouldn't it be changed to simply Damar? --Eyrian 12:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's definitely NOT cannon and the only instance I know of it being used is in the Novel "A Stitch in Time". It needs to be changed to just plain "Damar". --Sloan47 05:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Eyrian 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dukat Inaccuracy
--Cackle jr 17:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)The part about Dukat becoming insane and Damar thus taking over is entirely inaccurate, this does not correspond with any of the events seen on screen leading to the Dominion withdrawal from Deep Space Nine

Assessment
I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out ( strike ) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable issues

 * The article needs sources!

title: Talk:Damar (Star Trek)


text:
Lindsay

Lindsay may refer to:

People

 * Clan Lindsay, a Scottish family clan
 * Lindsay (name), an English surname and given name, derived from the Scottish clan name; variants include Lindsey, Lyndsay, Linsay, Linsey, Lyndsey, Lyndsy, Lynsay, Lynsey

Places

 * Australia
 * Division of Lindsay, an electoral district in New South Wales

 * Canada
 * Lindsay, Ontario

 * United States
 * Lindsay, California
 * Lindsay, Montana
 * Lindsay, Nebraska
 * Lindsay, Oklahoma
 * Lindsay, South Dakota, a ghost town
 * Lindsay, Cooke County, Texas
 * Lindsay, Reeves County, Texas

Other uses

 * Lindsay (crater), a lunar impact crater
 * Lindsay (TV series), an American reality TV series
 * USS Lindsay (DE-519), a destroyer escort transferred to the Royal Navy

title: Lindsay


text:
Category:Zoology

Zoology is the study of the biology of animals.

title: Category:Zoology


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Jackson

Old discussion from VfD
''Discussion concluded and article kept on May 31, 2004. For the AfD that let to this article being deleted, see Articles for deletion/Tom Jackson (politician) (2nd nomination).''

Tom Jackson

 * Can't decide if he's Jackson or Robinson. Looks like a campaign ad, and reads as if copied from somewhere else.  RickK 03:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree with RickK. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:23, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's copied from and and is therefore Copyright © 2001-2004. The City of Hamilton, Ontario Canada. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 17:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've updated the format and removed some text so it should suit the page better now. - Matt
 * Keep new stub. Niteowlneils 20:30, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've copied the new stub to Tom Jackson/Temp, placed the notice of possible copyvio on Tom Jackson, and listed the page on Copyright problems. The VfD message has been left on both. --Zigger 23:58, 2004 May 28 (UTC)


text:
Thích Quảng Đức

Thích Quảng Đức (, ; born Lâm Văn Túc; 1897 – 11 June 1963) was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who died by self-immolation at a busy Saigon road intersection on 11 June 1963. Quảng Đức was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government of Ngô Đình Diệm, a staunch Roman Catholic. Photographs of his self-immolation circulated around the world, drawing attention to the policies of the Diệm government. John F. Kennedy said of one photograph, "No news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one". Malcolm Browne won the World Press Photo of the Year for his photograph of the monk's death.

Quảng Đức's act increased international pressure on Diệm and led him to announce reforms with the intention of mollifying the Buddhists. However, the promised reforms were not implemented, leading to a deterioration in the dispute. As protests continued, the ARVN Special Forces loyal to Diệm's brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, launched raids across South Vietnam on Buddhist pagodas, seizing Quảng Đức's heart and causing deaths and widespread damage. Several Buddhist monks followed Quảng Đức's example, also immolating themselves. Eventually, a US-backed coup toppled Diệm, who was assassinated on 2 November 1963.

Biography
Accounts of the life of Quảng Đức are derived from information disseminated by Buddhist organizations. He was born in the village of Hội Khánh, in Vạn Ninh District of Khánh Hòa Province in central Vietnam as Lâm Văn Túc, one of seven children of Lâm Hữu Ứng and his wife, Nguyễn Thị Nương. At the age of seven, he left to study Buddhism under Hòa thượng Thích Hoằng Thâm, who was his maternal uncle and spiritual master. Thích Hoằng Thâm raised him as a son and Lâm Văn Túc changed his name to Nguyễn Văn Khiết. At age 15, he took the samanera (novice) vows and was ordained as a monk at age 20 under the dharma name Thích Quảng Đức. The Vietnamese name Thích (釋) is from "Thích Ca" or "Thích Già" (釋迦), means "of the Shakya clan." After ordination, he traveled to a mountain near Ninh Hòa, vowing to live the life of a solitary Buddhism-practicing hermit for three years. He returned in later life to open the Thien Loc pagoda at his mountain retreat.

After his self-imposed isolation ended, he began to travel around central Vietnam expounding the dharma. After two years, he went into retreat at the Sac Tu Thien An pagoda near Nha Trang. In 1932, he was appointed an inspector for the Buddhist Association in Ninh Hòa before becoming the inspector of monks in his home province of Khánh Hòa. During this period in central Vietnam, he was responsible for the construction of 14 temples. In 1934, he moved to southern Vietnam and traveled throughout the provinces spreading Buddhist teachings. During his time in southern Vietnam, he also spent two years in Cambodia studying the Theravada Buddhist tradition.

Upon his return from Cambodia, he oversaw the construction of a further 17 new temples during his time in the south. The last of the 31 new temples that he was responsible for constructing was the Quan The Am pagoda in the Phú Nhuận District of Gia Định Province on the outskirts of Saigon. The street on which the temple stands was later renamed Quảng Đức Street in 1975. After the temple-building phase, Quảng Đức was appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Panel on Ceremonial Rites of the Congregation of Vietnamese Monks, and as abbot of the Phuoc Hoa pagoda, which was the initial location of the Association for Buddhist Studies of Vietnam (ABSV). When the office of the ABSV was relocated to the Xá Lợi Pagoda, the main pagoda of Saigon, Quảng Đức resigned.

Religious background
In a country where surveys of the religious composition at the time estimated the Buddhist majority to be between 70 and 90 percent, President Diệm was a member of the Catholic minority, and pursued discriminatory policies favoring Catholics for public service and military promotions, as well as in the allocation of land, business arrangements and tax concessions. Diệm once told a high-ranking officer, forgetting that the officer was from a Buddhist family, "Put your Catholic officers in sensitive places. They can be trusted". Many officers in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) converted to Roman Catholicism as their military prospects depended on it. Additionally, the distribution of firearms to village self-defense militias saw weapons given only to Roman Catholics, with some Buddhists in the army being denied promotion if they refused to convert to Roman Catholicism.

Some Catholic priests ran their own private armies; there were forced conversions, looting, shelling, and demolition of pagodas in some areas, to which the government turned a blind eye. Some Buddhist villages converted en masse to receive aid or avoid being forcibly resettled by Diệm's regime. The "private" status that was imposed on Buddhism by the French, which required official permission to be obtained by those wishing to conduct public Buddhist activities, was not repealed by Diệm. Catholics were also de facto exempt from corvée labor, which the government obliged all citizens to perform, and United States aid was distributed disproportionately to Catholic majority villages by Diệm's regime.

The Catholic Church was the largest landowner in the country and enjoyed special exemptions in property acquisition, and land owned by the Catholic Church was exempt from land reform. The white and gold Vatican flag was regularly flown at all major public events in South Vietnam, and Diệm dedicated his country to the Virgin Mary in 1959.

Buddhist discontent erupted following a ban in early May on flying the Buddhist flag in Huế on Vesak, the birthday of Gautama Buddha. Just days before, Catholics had been encouraged to fly the Vatican flag at a celebration for Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục of Huế, Diệm's elder brother. A large crowd of Buddhists protested the ban, defying the government by flying Buddhist flags on the Buddhist holy day of Vesak and marching on the government broadcasting station. Government forces fired into the crowd of protesters, killing nine people. Diệm's refusal to take responsibility—he blamed the Viet Cong for the deaths—led to further Buddhist protests and calls for religious equality. As Diệm remained unwilling to comply with Buddhist demands, the frequency of protests increased.

Day of the act
On 10 June 1963, US correspondents were informed that "something important" would happen the following morning on the road outside the Cambodian embassy in Saigon. Most of the reporters disregarded the message, since the Buddhist crisis had at that point been going on for more than a month, and the next day only a few journalists turned up, including David Halberstam of The New York Times and Malcolm Browne, the Saigon bureau chief for the Associated Press (AP). Quảng Đức arrived as part of a procession that had begun at a nearby pagoda. Around 350 monks and nuns marched in two phalanxes, preceded by an Austin Westminster sedan, carrying banners printed in both English and Vietnamese. They denounced the Diệm government and its policy towards Buddhists, demanding that it fulfill its promises of religious equality. Another monk offered himself, but Quảng Đức's seniority prevailed.

The act occurred at the intersection of Phan Đình Phùng Boulevard (now Nguyễn Đình Chiểu Street) and Lê Văn Duyệt Street (now Cách Mạng Tháng Tám Street), a few blocks southwest of the Presidential Palace (now the Reunification Palace). Quảng Đức emerged from the car along with two other monks. One placed a cushion on the road while the second opened the trunk and took out a five-gallon petrol can. As the marchers formed a circle around him, Quảng Đức sat down in the traditional Buddhist meditative lotus position on the cushion. A colleague emptied the contents of the petrol container over Quảng Đức's head. Quảng Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words Nam mô A Di Đà Phật ("Homage to Amitābha Buddha") before striking a match and dropping it on himself. Flames consumed his robes and flesh, and black oily smoke emanated from his burning body.

Quảng Đức's last words before his self-immolation were documented in a letter he had left: "'Before closing my eyes and moving towards the vision of the Buddha, I respectfully plead to President Ngô Đình Diệm to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally. I call the venerables, reverends, members of the sangha and the lay Buddhists to organize in solidarity to make sacrifices to protect Buddhism.'"

David Halberstam wrote: "'I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think ... As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.'"

The spectators were mostly stunned into silence, but some wailed and several began praying. Many of the monks and nuns, as well as some shocked passersby, prostrated themselves before the burning monk. Even some of the policemen, who had orders to control the gathered crowd, prostrated before him.

In English and Vietnamese, a monk repeated into a microphone: "A Buddhist priest burns himself to death. A Buddhist priest becomes a martyr." After approximately 10 minutes, Quảng Đức's body was fully immolated and it eventually toppled backwards onto its back. Once the fire subsided, a group of monks covered the smoking corpse with yellow robes, picked it up and tried to fit it into a coffin, but the limbs could not be straightened and one of the arms protruded from the wooden box as he was carried to the nearby Xá Lợi Pagoda in central Saigon. Outside the pagoda, students unfurled bilingual banners that read: "A Buddhist priest burns himself for our five requests."

By 1:30p.m. around 1,000 monks had congregated inside to hold a meeting, while outside a large crowd of pro-Buddhist students had formed a human barrier around it. The meeting soon ended and all but 100 monks slowly left the compound. Nearly 1,000 monks, accompanied by laypeople, returned to the cremation site. The police lingered nearby. At around 6:00p.m. thirty nuns and six monks were arrested for holding a prayer meeting on the street outside Xá Lợi. The police encircled the pagoda, blocking public passage and giving observers the impression that an armed siege was imminent by donning riot gear.

Funeral and aftermath
After the self-immolation, the US put more pressure on Diệm to re-open negotiations on the faltering agreement. Diệm had scheduled an emergency cabinet meeting at 11:30a.m. on 11June to discuss the Buddhist crisis which he believed to be winding down. Following Quảng Đức's death, Diệm canceled the meeting and met individually with his ministers. Acting US Ambassador to South Vietnam William Trueheart warned Nguyễn Đình Thuận, Diệm's Secretary of State, of the desperate need for an agreement, saying that the situation was "dangerously near breaking point" and expected Diệm would meet the Buddhists' five-point manifesto. United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk warned the Saigon embassy that the White House would publicly announce that it would no longer "associate itself" with the regime if this did not occur. The Joint Communiqué and concessions to the Buddhists were signed on 16 June.

15 June was set as the date for the funeral, and on that day 4,000 people gathered outside the Xá Lợi pagoda, only for the ceremony to be postponed. On 19 June, his remains were carried out of Xá Lợi to a cemetery 16 km south of the city for a re-cremation and funeral ceremony. Following the signing of the Joint Communiqué, attendance was limited by agreement between Buddhist leaders and police to approximately 500 monks.

Intact heart and symbolism
The body was re-cremated during the funeral, but Quảng Đức's heart supposedly remained intact and did not burn. It was considered to be holy and placed in a glass chalice at Xá Lợi Pagoda. The intact heart relic is regarded as a symbol of compassion. Quảng Đức has subsequently been revered by Vietnamese Buddhists as a bodhisattva (Bồ Tát), and accordingly is often referred to in Vietnamese as Bồ Tát Thích Quảng Đức. On 21 August, the ARVN Special Forces of Nhu attacked Xá Lợi and other Buddhist pagodas across Vietnam. The secret police intended to confiscate Quảng Đức's ashes, but two monks had escaped with the urn, jumping over the back fence and finding safety at the US Operations Mission next door.

The location chosen for the self-immolation, in front of the Cambodian embassy, raised questions as to whether it was coincidence or a symbolic choice. Trueheart and embassy official Charles Flowerree felt that the location was selected to show solidarity with the Cambodian government of Prince Norodom Sihanouk. South Vietnam and Cambodia had strained relations: in a speech on 22 May, Sihanouk had accused Diệm of mistreating Vietnamese and ethnic minority Khmer Buddhists. The pro-Diệm Times of Vietnam published an article on 9 June which claimed that Cambodian monks had been encouraging the Buddhist crisis, asserting it was part of a Cambodian plot to extend its neutralist foreign policy into South Vietnam. Flowerree noted that Diệm was "ready and eager to see a fine Cambodian hand in all the organized Buddhist actions".

Diệm reaction
Diệm made a radio address at 19:00 on the day of Quảng Đức's death, asserting that he was profoundly troubled by the event. He appealed for "serenity and patriotism", and announced that stalled negotiations would resume with the Buddhists. He claimed that negotiations had been progressing well and in a time of religious tension emphasized the role of the Roman Catholic philosophy of personalism in his rule. He alleged that extremists had twisted the facts and he asserted that the Buddhists can "count on the Constitution, in other words, me".

The ARVN responded to the appeal, putting on a show of solidarity behind Diệm to isolate dissident officers. Thirty high-ranking officers headed by General Lê Văn Tỵ declared their resolve to carry out all missions entrusted to the army for the defense of the constitution and the Republic. The declaration was a veneer which masked a developing plot to oust Diệm. Some of the signatories were to become personally involved in Diệm's overthrow and death in November. Generals Dương Văn Minh and Trần Văn Đôn, the presidential military advisor and the chief of the army who were to lead the coup, were overseas.

Madame Nhu (a Catholic convert and the wife of Diệm's younger brother and chief adviser Ngô Đình Nhu), who was regarded as the First Lady of South Vietnam at the time (as Diệm was a bachelor), said she would "clap hands at seeing another monk barbecue show". Later that month, Diệm's government charged that Quảng Đức had been drugged before being forced to die by suicide. The regime also accused Browne of bribing Quảng Đức to burn himself.

Political and media impact
Photographs taken by Malcolm Browne of the self-immolation quickly spread across the wire services and were featured on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. The self-immolation was later regarded as a turning point in the Buddhist crisis and a critical point in the collapse of the Diệm regime.

Historian Seth Jacobs asserted that Quảng Đức had "reduced America's Diệm experiment to ashes as well" and that "no amount of pleading could retrieve Diệm's reputation" once Browne's images had become ingrained into the psyche of the world public. Ellen Hammer described the event as having "evoked dark images of persecution and horror corresponding to a profoundly Asian reality that passed the understanding of Westerners." John Mecklin, an official from the US embassy, noted that the photograph "had a shock effect of incalculable value to the Buddhist cause, becoming a symbol of the state of things in Vietnam." William Colby, then chief of the CIA's Far East Division, opined that Diệm "handled the Buddhist crisis fairly badly and allowed it to grow. But I really don't think there was much they could have done about it once that bonze burned himself."

President John F. Kennedy, whose government was the main sponsor of Diệm's regime, learned of Quảng Đức's death when handed the morning newspapers while he was talking to his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, on the phone. Kennedy reportedly interrupted their conversation about segregation in Alabama by exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" He later remarked that "no news picture in history has generated so much emotion around the world as that one". US Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed that "such grisly scenes have not been witnessed since the Christian martyrs marched hand in hand into the Roman arenas."

In Europe, the photographs were sold on the streets as postcards during the 1960s, and China distributed millions of copies of the photograph throughout Asia and Africa as evidence of what it called US imperialism. One of Browne's photographs remains affixed to the sedan in which Quảng Đức was riding and is part of a tourist attraction in Huế. For Browne and the AP, the pictures were a marketing success. Ray Herndon, the United Press International (UPI) correspondent who had forgotten to take his camera on the day, was harshly criticized in private by his employer. UPI estimated that 5,000 readers in Sydney, then a city of around 1.5–2 million, had switched to AP news sources.

Diệm's English-language mouthpiece, the Times of Vietnam, intensified its attacks on both journalists and Buddhists. Headlines such as "Xá Lợi politburo makes new threats" and "Monks plot murder" were printed. One article questioned the relationship between the monks and the press by posing the question as to why "so many young girls are buzzing in and out of Xá Lợi early [in the day]" and then going on to allege that they were brought in for sexual purposes for the US reporters.

Nearly 30 years after Quảng Đức's self-immolation, one of Browne's photographs of the event was used as the cover art for American rap metal band Rage Against the Machine's eponymous debut album.

Precedents and influence
The practice of Vietnamese monks immolating themselves was not unprecedented. Instances of self-immolations in Vietnam had been recorded for centuries, usually carried out to honor Gautama Buddha. The most recently recorded case had been in North Vietnam in 1950. The French colonial authorities had tried to eradicate the practice after their conquest of Vietnam in the nineteenth century, but had not been totally successful. They did manage to prevent one monk from setting fire to himself in Huế in the 1920s, but he starved himself to death instead. During the 1920s and 1930s, Saigon newspapers reported multiple instances of self-immolations by monks in a matter-of-fact style. The practice had also been seen in the Chinese city of Harbin in 1948 when a monk sat down in the lotus position on a pile of sawdust and soybean oil and set fire to himself in protest against the treatment of Buddhism by the anti-religious communists of Mao Zedong. His heart remained intact, as did that of Quảng Đức.

After Quảng Đức, five more Buddhist monks immolated themselves up until late October 1963 as the Buddhist protests in Vietnam escalated. On 1 November, the ARVN overthrew Diệm in a coup. Diệm and Nhu were assassinated the next day. Monks have followed Quảng Đức's example since for other reasons.

The Americans in Saigon often found the self-immolations to be surreal and made puns about "bonze fires" and "hot cross bonzes". In one instance in 1963, the young son of an American officer based at the Saigon US Embassy doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire. He was seriously burned before the fire was extinguished and later said "I wanted to see what it was like." Thích Quảng Đức's actions were fatally copied in the United States in protest against the Vietnam War. On 16 March 1965, Alice Herz, an 82-year-old peace activist, immolated herself in front of the Federal Department Store in northwest Detroit.

title: Thích Quảng Đức


text: Category:Norwegian people

title: Category:Norwegian people