Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-23 Thread Cameron Patrick
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:09:30PM -0500, david nicol wrote: | Shamless plug: sign up for totally spam-free forwarding address | at http://pay2send.com Ewww! *recoils in disgust* "You don't pay to send, we make others pay to send to you." - if this system become widespread, then you surely /wou

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-22 Thread Graham Wilson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:09:30PM -0500, david nicol wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote: > > sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) > > is a broken system. > > > > i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and > > correct.

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-22 Thread david nicol
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote: > sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) is a > broken system. > > i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and correct. Shamless plug: sign up for totally spam-free forwarding address at http:

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-09 Thread Steve Lamb
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:50:51 +0200 "Julian Mehnle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you can't make such a general statement that using content-based filters > is "better" than using DNS RBLs. It wholly depends on the listing policy of > the RBL, and in most cases, content-based filters will be the

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-09 Thread Steve Lamb
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:49:36 +0100 > It's the same sort of thinking that's causing no end of trouble for people > trying to communicate with AOL users: > http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=96264 > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/13/2215207.shtml?tid=120 I've g

RE: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-09 Thread Julian Mehnle
Karsten M. Self wrote: > [Using DNS RBLs to block spam is bad.] > As many people have noted, for pretty much _any_ > given IP, your odds are good that most of the mail received from it is > spam. It doesn't do much for the legit mail that comes through. Given > that we now _do_ have good content

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-09 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:07:39AM +1000, Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:09:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000 > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-08 Thread Craig Sanders
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:09:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000 > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > I'm coming to the view that we're approaching the era where all mail is > > > going

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:40:15PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL > > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > [W3C's autoresponder] > > > > This one's a bit d

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-08 Thread Steve Lamb
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000 Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > I'm coming to the view that we're approaching the era where all mail is > > going to have to be subject to filtering, at the MTA level. > Depends on h

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-08 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: [W3C's autoresponder] > > This one's a bit different. It's only asking for permission to archive > > posts to the list - I guess W3C's just tr

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote: > > > This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to > > >

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-07 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote: > On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote: > > This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > Subject: Re: Thank you! > > From: > > Date:Sa

Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy

2003-09-06 Thread Joshua Kwan
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote: > This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Subject: Re: Thank you! > From: > Date:Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:40:45 --0400 > > Your message has NOT been distributed to