On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 06:33:28PM +, Lars Hecking ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Bruno Postle writes:
> > On Sat 03-Nov-2001 at 11:06:16AM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> > >
> > > (In case you haven't already gone "D'oh!":)
> >
> > Am I the only person who got a huge windows virus tagged onto
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 10:58:07PM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> I have a theory as to what happened with that message I sent that was
> delivered to the list with another message, containing sircam,
> dangling off the end.
> I just sent a reply to Lars's post about that message, in that thread,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 11:40:11AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> Cliff Sarginson wrote:
>
> > Mmm, oops.
> > I don't think [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid address,
> > so how comes I got it ? That was a rhetorical question, btw.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED] - both addresses
> work (an
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:07:05PM +, Steve Kennedy wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 10:58:07PM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
>
> > I have a theory as to what happened with that message I sent that was
> > delivered to the list with another message, containing sircam,
> > dangling off the end.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:07:05PM +, Steve Kennedy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > So, my message would have landed in Steve's moderator mailbox. Part of
> > his mail system reacted poorly to the control characters in the
> > message following and didn't separate it out as a separate
> > mes
On Sat, Nov 03, 2001 at 10:44:46PM -0500, Rich Lafferty (dis)graced my inbox with:
> Those who saw it and thought "This last part wasn't signed! It must
> not be from Rich!" get brownie points. Those that didn't need to read
> their PGP manuals again :-)
Should we be worried that this entire mess
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:58:12AM -0600, Charles Curley decreed:
[snip]
> If you have the cygwin tools, you might see if the regular mutt
> tarball will compile there.
>
> http://www.cygwin.com
[snip]
FWIW - Cygwin actually provides a pre-build mutt in their normal setup.
You may have to click
> Steve Cooper [Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 11:08:13AM +]:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:58:12AM -0600, Charles Curley decreed:
> [snip]
> > If you have the cygwin tools, you might see if the regular mutt
> > tarball will compile there.
> >
> > http://www.cygwin.com
> [snip]
>
> FWIW - Cygwin a
* Nicolas Rachinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [03-11-2001 20:28]:
| AFAIK it is possible and harmless to have multiple Instances of mutt
| running and accessing the same folders.
|
| I want to ask if anybody knows if that's still true when using
| compressed folders (to let multiple instances of mutt
I often get mail from people whose corporate mail server
appends some type of disclaimer to their outgoing mail and then rewrites
the Subject line of those messages with "(See Notice Below)" appended to
it. This means, however, that a reply from one of those people to a
message from me wi
> So, IMO, this is _not_ a good idea.
>
> --
> René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
you have such a way with words, rene.
11 matches
Mail list logo
