I totally agree, dude!
Mail totally rules!
Right on, man!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 12 April 2002 09:49 am, Craig Dickson wrote:
> begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
> > OTOH, those who are most likely to have this beef are also more likely
> > to have the tools to handle the problem largely transparently. Procmail
> > fits the bill perfectly here with its cache and set
ben, 2002-Apr-12 00:19 -0700:
> >
> >6. on reply, add your text at the bottom of the message body
> > after removing content you are not responding too
> >
> > or is this too much?
>
> the idea is right, and i do understand what you mean, but how do we phrase
> that so that everyone get
begin Karsten M. Self quotation:
> OTOH, those who are most likely to have this beef are also more likely
> to have the tools to handle the problem largely transparently. Procmail
> fits the bill perfectly here with its cache and setting proper filter
> precedence.
Yes, I would think a fairly
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 11:51:55PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > So even though "reply to the list only" is the policy of debian lists,
> > you disagree?
>
> Then it needs to reflect this in the headers instead of just leaving it
> to chance.
On Friday 12 April 2002 01:37 am, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 01:50, ben wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 April 2002 05:41 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> [...]
>
> > the point of the thread is to develop an introductory set of rules to be
> > available to new subscribers as part
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 01:50, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 05:41 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> [snip]
[...]
>
> the point of the thread is to develop an introductory set of rules to be
> available to new subscribers as part of their confirmation message, in the
> hope of limiting some of
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Gary Turner wrote:
> So, Balloo, maybe our only recourse is to carp each time we get
> duplicate replies. A reminder to the more experienced, and a lesson to
> the newbies, eh?
Or you could procmail the dupes into the hole, or carp at the listmaster
to get reply-to turned on
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:49:04 -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:36:21PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>>
>> > I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
>> > my Mail-Followup-To: header which ex
On Thursday 11 April 2002 10:04 pm, Jeff wrote:
> ben, 2002-Apr-11 16:23 -0700:
> > so far:
> >
> > 1. no spam
> >
> > 2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
> >
> > 3. wrap text
> >
> > 4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
> >
> > 5. attachments should be minimal and relevan
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> So even though "reply to the list only" is the policy of debian lists,
> you disagree?
Then it needs to reflect this in the headers instead of just leaving it
to chance.
--
Baloo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
ben, 2002-Apr-11 16:23 -0700:
> so far:
>
> 1. no spam
>
> 2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
>
> 3. wrap text
>
> 4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
>
> 5. attachments should be minimal and relevant to the topic
>
> additions, modifications?
>
How about...
on Thu, Apr 11, 2002, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
> > my Mail-Followup-To: header which explicitly requests a response to the
> > list, and only to the lis
On Thursday 11 April 2002 09:36 pm, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
> > my Mail-Followup-To: header which explicitly requests a response to the
> > list, and only to the list. Until
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 09:36:21PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
>
> > I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
> > my Mail-Followup-To: header which explicitly requests a response to the
> > list, and only to the lis
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
> my Mail-Followup-To: header which explicitly requests a response to the
> list, and only to the list. Until I see people practicing what they
> preach, nay demand from the rest o
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, ben wrote:
> 4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
This can be fixed if [EMAIL PROTECTED] reconfigures the list to send
messages with a Reply-To: header. Yes, I've seen the "Reply-To:
considered harmful" bit, but if you don't want to automatically be CC'd
on
On Thursday 11 April 2002 06:27 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
[snip]
>
> A quote from your previous post:
> > 4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
>
> I'd take this effort more seriously if participants (like you) honored
> my Mail-Followup-To: header which explicitly requests a resp
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 05:50:16PM -0700, ben wrote:
> On Thursday 11 April 2002 05:41 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Coming up with a list of "rules" is a pointless exercise; you do not
> > possess the ability to enforce your rules, unless you are the
> > listmaster.
> >
> > I do supp
On Thursday 11 April 2002 05:41 pm, Nathan E Norman wrote:
[snip]
>
> Coming up with a list of "rules" is a pointless exercise; you do not
> possess the ability to enforce your rules, unless you are the
> listmaster.
>
> I do support people who desire that "netiquette" be observed on this
> list, a
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 04:23:18PM -0700, ben wrote:
> so far:
>
>1. no spam
>
> 2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
>
> 3. wrap text
>
> 4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
>
> 5. attachments should be minimal and relevant to the topic
>
> additions, modif
so far:
1. no spam
2. text-only (no html, ms-tnef, etc.)
3. wrap text
4. reply to the list only, unless requested to cc:
5. attachments should be minimal and relevant to the topic
additions, modifications?
ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
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
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
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 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
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]
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 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 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
37 matches
Mail list logo
