There haven't been any new points raised in this thread since the first day.
There's no point in replying to to this thread anymore.
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 08:25 -0400, Jerry wrote:
>
> Hell I bitch about a lot of things; however, that does not change the
> facts of the case. Only a subset of this list received the message in
> question -
Likely to see how many people bitched before the rest
> - and I was not one of them.
On Sat, 19 May 2012 11:36:24 +1000
Noel Butler articulated:
>non-event? You wouldnt be saying that if certain other operators with
>their products did that. I've seen you bitch and whinge about far far
>far less over the years Jerry.
Hell I bitch about a lot of things; however, that does not chan
On 2012-05-18 10:18 PM, Tamsy wrote:
This thread has already evolved into an ideological conflict. Better to
leave it now since every word, every further argument is just heating
the atmosphere up and is scaring other users off the list…
Best just to PLONK Noel, as I did a long time ago...
Bu
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 09:43 +0800, Oon-Ee Ng wrote:
> Almost every commercial product I know off does send unsolicited email.
Indeed, its why DNSBL's were developed
> There's a delete or report spam button/shortcut key for that. If it helps
> some other users, and more importantly the dovecot
Oon-Ee Ng wrote the following on 19.05.2012 08:43:
On May 19, 2012 9:36 AM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 06:48 -0400, Jerry wrote:
basically a non-event. It must have been a really slow news day.
non-event? You wouldnt be saying that if certain other operators with
their prod
On May 19, 2012 9:36 AM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 06:48 -0400, Jerry wrote:
>
>
> > basically a non-event. It must have been a really slow news day.
> >
>
> non-event? You wouldnt be saying that if certain other operators with
> their products did that. I've seen you bitch an
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 06:48 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> basically a non-event. It must have been a really slow news day.
>
non-event? You wouldnt be saying that if certain other operators with
their products did that. I've seen you bitch and whinge about far far
far less over the years Jerry.
sig
On 2012-05-18 6:48 AM, Jerry wrote:
Absolutely incredible -- I have counted 35 posts in response to what is
basically a non-event. It must have been a really slow news day.
Yeah - I'm inclined to classify *all* of the complaints about said
non-event as *spam*, since none of them were in line
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:01:42 +1000
Noel Butler articulated:
>Doesn't matter, those acts are only effective against people from your
>own country or those who use services based in that country, they do
>not and can not apply to anyone else (despite what the U.S. Govt likes
>to think)
Absolutely i
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:35 +0700, Tamsy wrote:
> All that noise because of one mail offering some paid support is so
one mail multiplies by all the miscreants in the world adds up to a
bucket load of crap
> unnecessary!
Actually, it has merits, because it is spam, had it gone to users@ or
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 20:32 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Jeff Kletsky wrote:
> > Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
> > violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
> > the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
> ---
> And you ha
Linda Walsh wrote the following on 18.05.2012 10:32:
Jeff Kletsky wrote:
Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
---
And you have proof of this?
Jeff Kletsky wrote:
Even with "good intent" the message in question is clearly in
violation of CAN-SPAM and Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Sec. 17529, of which
the sender was informed of when my server was accessed.
---
And you have proof of this? That they received notice? I assume
you have
their
14 matches
Mail list logo
