On Friday 12 April 2002 08:08 am, Wendell Cochran wrote:
> Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:18:48 -0700
>
> ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:19 pm, Wendell Cochran wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> http://www.expita.com/nomime/.html
> >>
> >> -- which is useful in explaining matters to innocent
Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:18:48 -0700
ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:19 pm, Wendell Cochran wrote:
[snip]
>> http://www.expita.com/nomime/.html
>>
>> -- which is useful in explaining matters to innocent offenders.
>> It tells how HTML/MIME clash with
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
>
> This is my SOP with spam.
Yes, but it wasn't spam. Accusing somebody of spamming when they aren't
is actionable, Karsten, and hurts the antispam cause. You're cutting
off all our noses to spite your own face.
--
Shawn McMahon| McMahon
On Friday 12 April 2002 12:44 am, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 April 2002 10:48 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > [big snip}
> >
> > karsten, if there were a competition to construct the most impact-full
> > phrase, you would have to
on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 10:48 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> [big snip}
>
> karsten, if there were a competition to construct the most impact-full
> phrase, you would have to win with "a modicum of clue." i swear, that
> kicks my ass. i'm sitt
On Thursday 11 April 2002 10:48 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
[big snip}
karsten, if there were a competition to construct the most impact-full
phrase, you would have to win with "a modicum of clue." i swear, that kicks
my ass. i'm sitting back with a drink in my hand cheering your linguistic
auda
on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, Matt Frazer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Karsten neglects to mention that he also sent a Spam/UCE/UBE report to
> myself, abuse and [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse and [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> as well as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is my SOP with spam.
I use a set of tools to automate muc
dman, 2002-Apr-11 12:58 -0500:
>
> | My company simply says that they just won't support anything but
> | those specified (Outlook and Outlook Express), but I can use
> | anything I want.
>
> This is a reasonable approach. This allows you to use the best tool
> for the job, but still keeps the h
On Thursday 11 April 2002 09:58 pm, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Matt Frazer wrote:
> > This surprises me in that other than the blanket definition of, Email I
> > don't want to see, I do not understand how a mail server here replying to
> > a message sender that it detected a
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:39:10AM +0100, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> Ben's second rule "No html" - why? Are there still email clients that
> can't render html? I use Evolution and mutt. Both work fine with html.
> People who subscribe from work often will have no say on this. I
> remember the horro
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Matt Frazer wrote:
> This surprises me in that other than the blanket definition of, Email I
> don't want to see, I do not understand how a mail server here replying to a
> message sender that it detected a virus in an attachment could be seen as
> Spam, or unsolicited commerc
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:18:48 -0700, ben wrote:
>On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:19 pm, Wendell Cochran wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> http://www.expita.com/nomime/.html
>>
>> -- which is useful in explaining matters to innocent offenders.
>> It tells how HTML/MIME clash with mailing lists, & then lists more
>>
On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:19 pm, Wendell Cochran wrote:
[snip]
>
> http://www.expita.com/nomime/.html
>
> -- which is useful in explaining matters to innocent offenders.
> It tells how HTML/MIME clash with mailing lists, & then lists more
> than 2 dozen mailers each with a recipe for turning MIM
> Thu, 11 Apr 2002 05:24:19 -0700
> "Karsten M. Self" :
>> on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, Patrick Kirk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip]
>> 1. What problem do we have that needs to be addressed?
>> 2. How do we address these problems in a way that /encourages/ people
>> to come h
begin Matt Frazer quotation:
>
> This is largely irrelevant as I have put in my request to unsubscribe,
> corporate policy requires I unsub from lists that trip the AV filter.
>
> I must say as a long time debian user and advocate, it breaks my heart to
> see this foolhardy "anything that is Mi
Matt Frazer writes:
> I must say as a long time debian user and advocate, it breaks my heart to
> see this foolhardy "anything that is Microsoft should be banned" attitude
> proposed and accepted...
What evidence do you see that any such thing has been accepted by the only
people who matter: the l
* Matt Frazer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> I must say as a long time debian user and advocate, it breaks my heart to
> see this foolhardy "anything that is Microsoft should be banned" attitude
> proposed and accepted on a list whose purpose is to provide help to debian
> users. Seems to
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 14:44, Matt Frazer wrote:
> Karsten neglects to mention that he also sent a Spam/UCE/UBE report to
> myself, abuse and [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse and [EMAIL PROTECTED], as well
> as [EMAIL PROTECTED] The body of this report contained thinly
> veiled threats of being reported to
D]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:49 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: The latest round of antivirus bouncebacks
[...]
> I respond to the address, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following. Manually, haven't
> procmailed it yet:
Shawn writes:
> It can in fact be detrimental for non-Native speakers, because if the
> spell checker suggests a word that is not at all what you meant, you
> might go "oh, is that what it is? OK." and pick something bizarre.
That's because most spelling checkers know too many words.
--
John Has
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 10:15, Daniel Toffetti wrote:
> > > 4. Spell check.
> >
> > i think stipulating a spell check would impose too much on many
> > non-native english speakers whose participation on this list is very
> > valuable,
> The spellchecker is pretty, but hardly useful enough as to re
begin Daniel Toffetti quotation:
>
> The spellchecker is pretty, but hardly useful enough as to require it
> to post to the list.
It can in fact be detrimental for non-Native speakers, because if the
spell checker suggests a word that is not at all what you meant, you
might go "oh, is that what
begin Jeff quotation:
>
> Some are more strict than others, but it's for IT support
> reasons. IT doesn't want to have to support multiple
> applications that do the same thing (i.e. email clients), this
> gets expensive.
Not as expensive as supporting Outlook Express; every time the
virus-of-t
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:35:38 -0700, ben wrote:
>... the purpose of this is to generate an advisory
>notice for new subscribers. what else shoud be on that list?
How about reply protocol? Reply to list, not poster, unless explicitly
requested.
--
gt
It is interesting to note that as one evil emp
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:54:52 +0100, Simon Hepburn wrote:
>ben wrote:
>
>> thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
>
>If I'm helping people out with, say X problems for example, I'd far prefer to
>see their config and log files as attachments rather than pasted, simply
>beccause of
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:41:45 +0200, Mikael Bergman wrote:
>On 11-04-02 00:45 , Gary Turner wrote:
>
>> I have no problem with attachments. In many cases, where a file is
>> long, attachments are preferred. I often have neither the
>> qualifications nor interest needed to enjoy wading through pag
on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, Patrick Kirk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Ben has a good idea about a consensual agreement as part of
> subscribing. Rather than dive straight into what goes into this
> agreement, perhaps its worth asking a three questions:
>
> 1. What problem do we have that needs to be
> management of the list. If you want to express an opinion on the
> merits of the position, go for it. If you want to cast aspersions of
> fascism, save us both the trouble and pipe it to /dev/null.
Well, it's not an exact reference to nazism, but it was very close.
Hence, I invoke the applica
On Thursday 11 April 2002 10:51, Kent West wrote:
> >>>1. no spam
> >>>
> >>> 2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
> >>>
> >>> 3. wrap text
>
> 4. English preferred.
I do agree, but anyway most of the messages are posted in english. The
few that are not in english are from first-timers. I ofte
> > 4. Spell check.
>
> i think stipulating a spell check would impose too much on many
> non-native english speakers whose participation on this list is very
> valuable, and the purpose of the rules is to enable harmonious
> inclusion rather than exclusion. apart from that, misspelled words
> are
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 20:30, Simon Hepburn wrote:
> Scott Henson wrote:
> > Ok thats just not cool. You dont have to do that. This is an open
> > list. And I believe it is against the inclusive philosophy of the
> > Debian project as a whole to exclude someone for such a stupid
> > purpose.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:22:59AM -0700, Jeff wrote:
| Shawn McMahon, 2002-Apr-10 22:53 -0400:
| >
| > I find it difficult to believe that there are any businesses requiring
| > their users to use Outlook Express.
|
| Some are more strict than others, but it's for IT support
| reasons. IT doesn
Shawn McMahon, 2002-Apr-10 22:53 -0400:
>
> I find it difficult to believe that there are any businesses requiring
> their users to use Outlook Express.
Some are more strict than others, but it's for IT support
reasons. IT doesn't want to have to support multiple
applications that do the same th
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
>
> Does that exculde the hotmail yahoo whatever browser-based mailer
> people?
Not any more than it does now; html is already against the list rules.
Hotmail and Yahoo can both be set to send plain-text mail. If someone
chooses to do differently, they have only
begin Oliver Elphick quotation:
>
> What command produced this?
gpg automatically trying to pull down the key from the Cryptnet
keyserver.
I verified that it DOES have the key.
Even if I download the key manually and do a "gpg --import" then paste
it in:
gpg: key 3E1D0C1C: no valid user IDs
g
begin ben quotation:
>
>4. reply to the list only, unless specifically requested to cc:
This can happen because of a buggy mail client, or because the original
sender has set message flags to cause this to happen, which again can be
because of a buggy mail client or a deliberate configuratio
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 14:58, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> begin Oliver Elphick quotation:
> >
> > As you should see, this mail, sent through Evolution, has the GNUpg
> > signature in an attachment.
>
> Not that it matters, because:
>
> [-- PGP output follows (current time: Thu 11 Apr 2002 09:53:26 AM
At 08:51 AM 4/11/2002 -0500, Kent West wrote:
>>
>>
1. no spam
2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
3. wrap text
>4. English preferred.
5. Off topic threads shall not exceed in number the number of off-topic
message(s) or spam that they discuss.
;)
Bill Mosele
At 02:41 AM 4/11/02, Mikael Bergman wrote:
On 11-04-02 00:45 , Gary Turner wrote:
> I have no problem with attachments. In many cases, where a file is
> long, attachments are preferred. I often have neither the
> qualifications nor interest needed to enjoy wading through pages of this
> script
begin Oliver Elphick quotation:
>
> As you should see, this mail, sent through Evolution, has the GNUpg
> signature in an attachment.
Not that it matters, because:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Thu 11 Apr 2002 09:53:26 AM EDT)
--]
gpg: Signature made Thu 11 Apr 2002 05:51:03 AM EDT usin
At 09:40 PM 4/10/02, Tom Cook wrote:
On 0, Chris Jenks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While we are at it, why don't we drop people that use / send attachments.
> That should fix the rest of the problems.
I would refrain from going that far, simply because I suspect that my
pgp signature is sent a
1. no spam
2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
3. wrap text
4. English preferred.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
>
> Others have suggested no attachments. Why? What attachments have caused
> problems? Are there some mail clients out there that force you to read
Yes.
That virus that was sent to the list yesterday will have infected at
least a couple of readers of this list.
begin ben quotation:
>
> how about a stipulation that attachments also be plain text only? does that
> negatively encroach on pgp signatures in any way?
Depends on how you define "plain text". After all:
aslf;kjasdr;lfkjasf;lkjasf;kljasfl;kjasdflk;asjflak;sdjfasdfkl;j
is plain text. ms-tnef
begin ben quotation:
>
> thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
Only attachments that provide useful functionality in a cross-platform
accessible manner, and don't obscure the textual content.
Thus, PGP sigs, S/MIME sigs, and attachments of "here's my config file |
log file | scr
begin Gary Turner quotation:
>
> It has been referenced, but neither discussed nor described. This is
> the first definition of what it is that I've seen. All I've known is
> that looking at it raw, it is not text that I can read, so out it goes.
Also, it's complicated by the fact that Micros
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 12:46, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:10 am, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> > On 11 Apr 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> > > Does that exculde the hotmail yahoo whatever browser-based mailer
I'm pretty easy about all this. Its all a lot more reasonable than
writing to
on Wed, Apr 10, 2002, Christoph Simon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:16:53 +0200
> "adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > okay, I expected a bit more tolerance from debian users - I've just
> > unsubscribed.
> > sorry for having bothered you . . .
>
> Why don't you just subs
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, ben wrote:
>4. reply to the list only, unless specifically requested to cc:
>
> this has as much to do with conserving bandwidth as does eliminating html,
> etc. i read the list. i don't need duplicates. let those who do request them.
This is easy enough to procmail out.
On Thursday 11 April 2002 04:10 am, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> > Does that exculde the hotmail yahoo whatever browser-based mailer
> > people?
>
> No. They don't send in HTML. Though I would discourage anybody from
> using Hotmail as it's owned by the enem
On 11 Apr 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> Does that exculde the hotmail yahoo whatever browser-based mailer
> people?
No. They don't send in HTML. Though I would discourage anybody from
using Hotmail as it's owned by the enemy, and Yahoo due to spamming
practices.
> ms-tnef is not a mail format.
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 11:16, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 02:39 am, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> > Hi all,
I didn't say force people to use filters. I said that if you don't like
something, it makes sense to filter it and things like ms-tnef are
particularly easy to filter.
> formatting in m
On Thursday 11 April 2002 02:39 am, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> My posts on this topic generated more heat than light - apologies to
> anyone offended.
none taken, although your more recent suggestion involving list-customized
filters seems like way too much interference in the freedom that
On 11 Apr 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> Ben's second rule "No html" - why?
It's bloody expensive in bandwidth relative to content, highly rude,
completely unnecissary, and a fairly reliable method to filter spammers
off in .procmailrc.
> Are there still email clients that
> can't render html? I u
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 07:41, Mikael Bergman wrote:
> ... I can't imagine a situation where an
> attachment is warranted on a (debian) list.
As you should see, this mail, sent through Evolution, has the GNUpg
signature in an attachment.
--
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PRO
Hi all,
My posts on this topic generated more heat than light - apologies to
anyone offended.
Ben has a good idea about a consensual agreement as part of
subscribing. Rather than dive straight into what goes into this
agreement, perhaps its worth asking a three questions:
1. What problem do we
On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:53 am, Rich Rudnick wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 00:35, ben wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:54 pm, Simon Hepburn wrote:
> > > ben wrote:
> > > > thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
> > >
> > > If I'm helping people out with, say X problems f
On Thu, 2002-04-11 at 00:35, ben wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:54 pm, Simon Hepburn wrote:
> > ben wrote:
> > > thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
> >
> > If I'm helping people out with, say X problems for example, I'd far prefer
> > to see their config and log files as
On 10 Apr 2002, Chad Waters wrote:
> Really, who here has adminned SMTP servers and NEVER caused at least one
> mail loop or something similar. As long has they acknowledge it, fix it
> promptly, and learn from it, then let it go.
Five years now, never looped it. Must be luck.
> Now... the bone
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 11:54 pm, Simon Hepburn wrote:
> ben wrote:
> > thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
>
> If I'm helping people out with, say X problems for example, I'd far prefer
> to see their config and log files as attachments rather than pasted, simply
> beccause of
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, ben wrote:
> with reference to ms-tnef, is this a reasonable and workable prohibition?
> personally, i 've never been offended by it. is it actually an impediment on
> the list?
Yes. We've been getting tnef floods.
--
Baloo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Gary Turner wrote:
> It has been referenced, but neither discussed nor described. This is
> the first definition of what it is that I've seen. All I've known is
> that looking at it raw, it is not text that I can read, so out it goes.
That's what it is for anybody not usin
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:07:29PM -0700, ben wrote:
> thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
>
> 1. no spam
>
> 2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
>
> 3. wrap text
>
>4. no attachments ?
Attachments *can* be okay. Generally should be plain text. Don't
really want
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, adam wrote:
> But for the list as a whole perhaps you need to accept helping those coming
> from/force to work with window$ too.
Unfortunate, but true. Personally, I think whoever chases someone off
the list because they're having to use some (obviously inferior) OS at
the m
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Chris Jenks wrote:
> While we are at it, why don't we drop people that use / send attachments.
> That should fix the rest of the problems.
Well, sometimes it's handy to MIME a procmailrc example or something
rather than toss it in the message proper. There's gotta be a
compr
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Dave Price wrote:
> Reading from work via ssh ... Outlook window for corporate e-mail
> minimized.
Back when I had a professional email address, I just set it up to
forward at my personal one (this was considered kosher) and read in Pine
as to completely avoid Scrotus Bloats
ben wrote:
> thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
If I'm helping people out with, say X problems for example, I'd far prefer to
see their config and log files as attachments rather than pasted, simply
beccause of the sheer length of them. Also a lot of files, for example fstab,
On 11-04-02 00:45 , Gary Turner wrote:
> I have no problem with attachments. In many cases, where a file is
> long, attachments are preferred. I often have neither the
> qualifications nor interest needed to enjoy wading through pages of this
> script or that configuration. I do often benefit f
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 10:45 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
[snip]
> >>
> >> Mailing lists should be treated like usenet, only better ;-)
> >
> >thanks for the input. so, on attachments, none? some?
> >
>
> I have no problem with attachments. In many cases, where a file is
> long, attachments are pref
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:07:29 -0700, ben wrote:
>On Wednesday 10 April 2002 09:59 pm, Eric G. Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:52:02PM -0700, ben wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:39 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:21 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>> > > >be
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 09:59 pm, Eric G. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:52:02PM -0700, ben wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:39 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:21 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > > >begin ben quotation:
> > > >> reiterate them. as for t
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 08:52:02PM -0700, ben wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:39 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:21 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > >begin ben quotation:
> > >> reiterate them. as for the modification, i have no idea what ms-tnef is,
> > >> much less why
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 08:39 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:21 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> >begin ben quotation:
> >> reiterate them. as for the modification, i have no idea what ms-tnef is,
> >> much less why it should or shouldn't be permitted. since you apparently
> >>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:17:21 -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>begin ben quotation:
>>
>> reiterate them. as for the modification, i have no idea what ms-tnef is,
>> much
>> less why it should or shouldn't be permitted. since you apparently do, what
>> should its status be relative to desired prop
begin Chad Waters quotation:
>
> Now... the bonehead that unleashed the almost YEAR-OLD virus is another
> story...
And note that I complained about him, not about the bouncebacks; the
bouncebacks were merely the catalyst that led me to the suggestion.
Eliminate the Outlook Express users, and y
ben wrote:
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 06:35 pm, Shawn McMahon wrote:
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 19:45, Shawn McMahon wrote:
Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
perhaps it's simply time to work out a mutually agreeable ruleset fo
This has been amusing...
Really, who here has adminned SMTP servers and NEVER caused at least one
mail loop or something similar. As long has they acknowledge it, fix it
promptly, and learn from it, then let it go.
Now... the bonehead that unleashed the almost YEAR-OLD virus is another
story...
begin ben quotation:
>
> reiterate them. as for the modification, i have no idea what ms-tnef is, much
> less why it should or shouldn't be permitted. since you apparently do, what
> should its status be relative to desired propriety on the list?
It's a Microsoft proprietary standard for encap
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 06:56 pm, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> begin ben quotation:
> > let's get it going:
> >
> > 1. no spam.
> >
> > 2. no html.
> >
> > 3. wrap text.
>
> The first two are already in the list charter. The second, however,
> should be modified to make it more clear what's allowed
begin ben quotation:
>
> let's get it going:
>
> 1. no spam.
>
> 2. no html.
>
> 3. wrap text.
The first two are already in the list charter. The second, however,
should be modified to make it more clear what's allowed and what isn't,
since it doesn't mention ms-tnef.
--
Shawn McMahon
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 06:35 pm, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
> > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 19:45, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > > Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
> >
perhaps it's simply time to work out a mutually agreeable ruleset for
sub
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 19:45, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
> >
> What gives you the right to decide who is fit to ask for help using
> Debian?
"Perhaps" indicates expression of an opinion. So I hav
On 0, Chris Jenks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:49 PM 4/10/02, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >on Wed, Apr 10, 2002, Shawn McMahon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
> >>
> >> That'd eliminate 99% of the "unsubscribe" stupidity, as w
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 20:05, Alan Shutko wrote:
> I saw two suggestions about possible ways he could stop the impact of
> his company's broken mail server. I did not see "Go home, we don't
> want you." Is it now intolerance to suggest ways people could fix
> problems that bother others on the lis
Patrick Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I really never expected to see this level of intolerance in a Debian
> list.
You shouldn't have been, since it seems you were looking for it.
I saw two suggestions about possible ways he could stop the impact of
his company's broken mail server. I di
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 19:45, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
>
What gives you the right to decide who is fit to ask for help using
Debian?
> That'd eliminate 99% of the "unsubscribe" stupidity, as well.
>
Then let's exclude those foo
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 22:23, Christoph Simon wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:16:53 +0200
> "adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. .
>
> Why don't you just subscribe with a different (private?) account?
>
I'm shocked.
I really never expected to see this level of intolerance in a Debian
list.
Ad
Scott Henson wrote:
> Ok thats just not cool. You dont have to do that. This is an open
> list. And I believe it is against the inclusive philosophy of the Debian
> project as a whole to exclude someone for such a stupid purpose.
Seconded. This goes totally against the spirit of Debian. It's no
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 11:16:53PM +0200, adam wrote:
| okay, I expected a bit more tolerance from debian users - I've just
| unsubscribed.
| sorry for having bothered you . . .
Apology accepted for bothering us. You don't need to unsubscribe
because of it. The bother actually made me patch it o
"Karsten M. Self" writes:
> on Wed, Apr 10, 2002, Shawn McMahon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
> >
> > That'd eliminate 99% of the "unsubscribe" stupidity, as well.
>
> I respond to the address, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
> [EMAIL
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 17:16, adam wrote:
> okay, I expected a bit more tolerance from debian users - I've just
> unsubscribed.
> sorry for having bothered you . . .
>
> Adam
Ok thats just not cool. You dont have to do that. This is an open
list. And I believe it is against the inclusive philoso
ECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:56 PM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: RE: The latest round of antivirus bouncebacks
I agree, I'm sorry, the France Telecom one was my fault.
I work for a company that uses France Telecom for internet access and
pays
for them to check for viru
accept helping those coming
from/force to work with window$ too.
-Message d'origine-
De : Dimitri Maziuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : mercredi 10 avril 2002 23:26
A : adam
Objet : Re: The latest round of antivirus bouncebacks
* adam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
Reading from work via ssh ... Outlook window for corporate e-mail
minimized.
aloha,
dave
- unix, because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:55:03PM -0400, Scott Henson wrote:
> Some people read the list from places other than their home where they
> don't
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:16:53 +0200
"adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> okay, I expected a bit more tolerance from debian users - I've just
> unsubscribed.
> sorry for having bothered you . . .
Why don't you just subscribe with a different (private?) account?
--
Christoph Simon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here Here
aloha,
dave
- unix, because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:45:16PM -0400, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to start refusing list posts from Outlook Express.
>
> That'd eliminate 99% of the "unsubscribe" stupidity, as well.
>
>
okay, I expected a bit more tolerance from debian users - I've just
unsubscribed.
sorry for having bothered you . . .
Adam
-Message d'origine-
De : Dimitri Maziuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : mercredi 10 avril 2002 23:05
A : debian-user@lists.debian.org
Objet : Re: The la
* adam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> It wasn't my choice and I have no say in the matter - if the means that I am
> not welcome on this list then I will (reluctantly) unsubscribe.
You can always read the list via usenet. Posting is a bit of a PITA if
you do that, but I hear they are work
t viruses are a reason
to exclude people like myself.
I'll let the list decide and abide by the majority decision.
Adam
-Message d'origine-
De : Scott Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : mercredi 10 avril 2002 21:55
A : debian-user@lists.debian.org
Objet : Re: The
t viruses are a reason
to exclude people like myself.
I'll let the list decide and abide by the majority decision.
Adam
-Message d'origine-
De : Scott Henson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye : mercredi 10 avril 2002 21:55
A : debian-user@lists.debian.org
Objet : Re: The
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
