Tony Nugent wrote:
> I would complain. It is one thing to scan for and block/drop
> viruses and spam (and "bad" attachments etc), but filtering content
> with a "profanity" block in otherwise legitimate emails is
> tantamount to unilateral censorship. What right have they to do
> that?
Profan
Jay Crews wrote:
>
> Andrew Kelly writes
> > Profanity blocking can be a very legitimate tool in the right
> > circumstances. It's a good way to filter a great deal of
> > pornographic spam if you have no other blockage in place.
>
> This assumes you don
Will Mendez wrote:
>
> That's pretty impressive what would make them skip a dot release?
The cynical me says it's to force RHCE recertification.
--
Psyche-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
naugaranch wrote:
>
> With all the problems I've had with Red Hat 8 - particularly on my server
> (still not running correctly and updated fully). I've actually considered
> regressing to 7.2 on my server.
This is exactly what I'm facing and exactly the decision
I've made. Enigma runs perfectl
Joe Klemmer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Andrew Kelly wrote:
>
> > It's sad to see how prevalent MSing is becoming in the Linux namespace.
>
> 1) There's no evidence of any Linux company doing anything MS-like.
It's probably just a function of our diffe
