[Groff] File - movie SuCkingPuSSy.mpeg

2005-09-30 Thread wl
___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff

[Groff] Fw:'''~~movie'''~~25

2005-09-30 Thread Ted.Harding
___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff

Re: [Groff] moving TOC to start

2005-09-30 Thread Keith MARSHALL
Tadziu Hoffman wrote: > Assume that you (an unsuspecting groff user) want to format a > document downloaded from the internet for printing, but the > roff-file has unfortunately been modified by some malicious > prankster to write a shell script called "ls" to your personal > "bin" directory (which

[Groff] File - movie SuCkingPuSSy.mpeg

2005-09-30 Thread wl
___ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff

Fw: Funny Ass

2005-09-30 Thread wl
when i saw my ass i slept 3 hours why?? check my ass sorry my movie LL joke (^!^) Bye  Gnu.org servers automatically scanned for viruses using McAfee SECURITY -Winzip 8.1 File- ___ Bug-groff mailing list Bug-groff@gnu.org http://lists

Re: [Groff] moving TOC to start

2005-09-30 Thread Tadziu Hoffmann
> BTW, I *never* have *any* user writeable directory before the > system binary directories, in *my* PATH; but, I guess it would > be naive to expect everybody to follow that piece of simple > security advice. Obviously you're doing the Right Thing in this regard, but I find it sometimes conveni

Re: Re: [Groff] moving TOC to start

2005-09-30 Thread M Bianchi
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:20:40PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > > : > > BTW, I *never* have *any* user writeable directory before the > > system binary directories, in *my* PATH; but, I guess it would > > be naive to expect everybody to follow that piece of simple > > security advice. > >

Re: [Groff] moving TOC to start

2005-09-30 Thread Michael Parson
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:20:40PM +0200, Tadziu Hoffmann wrote: > >> BTW, I *never* have *any* user writeable directory before the >> system binary directories, in *my* PATH; but, I guess it would >> be naive to expect everybody to follow that piece of simple >> security advice. > > Obviously you