On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, omd wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
> >
> > This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as
> > Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to
I concur with o's praise and on the request regarding GPG signatures.
On 11/07/2017 01:42 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:08 AM, omd wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
>>>
> > 7956* o 2.0 Farm no More OP OP
>
> This proposal attempts to repeal several rules, but fails because it attempts
> to do them all at once rather than specifying an order, assuming that repeal
> does indeed still work. So it does not make any rule chang
yep
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:22 AM, omd wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with
> text/html parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting t
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:22 AM, omd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html
>> parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright?
>
> Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you h
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Is it possible to configure Mailman to pass through messages with text/html
> parts but to strip them, instead of rejecting them outright?
Well, that's odd. According to the logs, you had two messages
rejected with the message "The message
*test*
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 1:08 AM, omd wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
>>
>> This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as
>> Prime Minister to contact the Distr
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7941* Alexis 1.0 HTML Scrubbing Alexis 1 sh.
>
> This does not make any rule changes. I will, however, take it on myself as
> Prime Minister to contact the Distributor to make the request.
Having received such co
It came with the computer and it adds stupid annotations to the end of
all the emails I receive unless I tell it not to. I don't know why it
does it but I hate it and wish it would stop.
On 11/6/2017 5:07 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
Quite right, sorry. That's what comes when I check my emails in order o
Quite right, sorry. That's what comes when I check my emails in order of
receiving, rather than in reverse order.
Not sure what's up with your antivirus software, by the way.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> You're a bit late to the party. Alexis already accepted a simila
You're a bit late to the party. Alexis already accepted a similar CoE.
Good eye though.
On 11/6/2017 5:05 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
>This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is
written as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change).
I
t literally says at the end "
>This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written
as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change).
I
t literally says at the end "the above text constitutes a new rule, whose
title matches this proposal's". That's sufficient in any world.
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 18:14 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > 7934* 天火狐 1.0 Poetry Duel Challenge Writ 天火狐 OP [2]
> >
> > This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written
> > as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7934* 天火狐 1.0 Poetry Duel Challenge Writ 天火狐 OP [2]
>
> This proposal does not make any rule changes (the fact that it is written
> as a rule would be is insufficient to effect a rule change).
This part doesn't do it? It looks pret
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 18:06 -0500, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > 7940* Alexis, [3]3.0 High Power Cleanup Alexis 1 sh.
>
> Amends rule 105 (Rule Changes). Note that it erroneously removes "repeal a
> rule" from bullet 2. It's my opinion that, however, there isn't a
> reasonable way to
16 matches
Mail list logo
