On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 10:57:45PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 07:57:54AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> addresses have not gone through quickly. Steve said that he usually
> forwards interesting things. So this is something, but I still think it
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 10:57:45PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 07:57:54AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, TLR said that he would prefer to have the lists open. But
> he's not running the lists, Steve Kennedy is. I will be glad to be one
On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 07:57:54AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I really didn't want to say this out loud, but /I'm/ getting tired of
> this thread, which IMO is the most 'spam' I've seen through this list next
> to bounce messages.
I'm getting tired of it too, and will d
Warning
Could not process message with given Content-Type:
multipart/signed; boundary=H1spWtNR+x+ondvy; micalg=pgp-md5;protocol="application/pgp-signature"
On Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 10:38:57PM -0500, rfi from Rich Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 11:25:56PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
>
> > This whole mailing list situation is really silly. When Michael Elkins
> > ran the lists at Harvey Mudd College, they were open, and t
On Fri, Feb 05, 1999 at 11:25:56PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> This whole mailing list situation is really silly. When Michael Elkins
> ran the lists at Harvey Mudd College, they were open, and there was
> practically no spam. The new maintainer has admitted that the reason
The world is no
Stefan `Sec` Zehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 09:55:23PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
Maybe I should start using group-reply at all times, but that gives the old dupe-message problem, solved only if the remote users uses Mutt (or some sort of de-duping agent; most don't).
no
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 09:55:23PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> Maybe I should start using group-reply at all times, but that gives the
> old dupe-message problem, solved only if the remote users uses Mutt (or
> some sort of de-duping agent; most don't).
not completely correct. Mutt uses 'Mail-
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:02:53PM -0500, Stan Ryckman wrote:
> The procmail list is open (for similar reasons; the procmail man
> page points to it), yet it only gets maybe one piece of spam per
> month. How? It only accepts posts that have the list address in
> the To: or Cc: header. Nearly a
Le Sat 06/02/1999, David DeSimone disait
> Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Did you _read_ the beginning of my post that you quoted above? I give
> > another really good reason or two for at least mutt-dev to be open.
>
> Because it's listed in the "mutt -v" output, right? Sou
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 05:40:04AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
>
> Fixing your mail to always come from a single address really isn't that
> hard. Or subscribe both accounts, and send it to /dev/null on one. But
> don't make your e-mail name problem into our spam problem.
Hell yes.
The whole reason
Daniel Eisenbud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Did you _read_ the beginning of my post that you quoted above? I give
> another really good reason or two for at least mutt-dev to be open.
Because it's listed in the "mutt -v" output, right? Sounds reasonable
to me, but I usually assume that peopl
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 04:40:34PM -0800, Daniel Eisenbud wrote:
> This would also be really useful, and is something I wished majordomo
> had. Alternately, how about just letting the administrator specify two
> files to read authorized users from? This might well be easier, and
> then one of
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 04:31:13PM -0800, Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:02:53PM -0500, Stan Ryckman wrote:
>
> > The procmail list is open (for similar reasons; the procmail man page
> > points to it), yet it only gets maybe one piece of spam per month.
> >
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:02:53PM -0500, Stan Ryckman wrote:
> The procmail list is open (for similar reasons; the procmail man page
> points to it), yet it only gets maybe one piece of spam per month.
> How? It only accepts posts that have the list address in the To: or Cc:
> header. Nearly
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 05:40:04AM -0800, Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This whole mailing list situation is really silly. When Michael Elkins
> > ran the lists at Harvey Mudd College, they were open, and there was
> > practically no spam. The new maintainer has admitted that the r
At 05:40 AM 2/6/99 -0800, Joe Rhett wrote:
>> Given that there is no current reason to have mutt-* closed,
>
>Sure there is. I'm on 3 open lists (to my regret), and I get no less than
>12 pieces of spam per day from each of them. On most of them (like gnuplot),
>the content to spam ratio is pret
> This whole mailing list situation is really silly. When Michael Elkins
> ran the lists at Harvey Mudd College, they were open, and there was
> practically no spam. The new maintainer has admitted that the reason
> he closed the lists was not that there was a spam problem, but that he
> though
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 08:06:39AM +0100, Peter van Dijk
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err... no. My MTA masquerades as attic.vuurwerk.nl, like it should. Only for some
> (broken) mailinglists (like this one) I need to set my from-address to the address
> I'm subscribed under (peter-mutt goes into
19 matches
Mail list logo
