RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-30 Thread daniel lance herrick
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote: > Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM > > > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has > > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles? >

RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-29 Thread Charles Gregory
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Colin A. Bartlett wrote: > Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM > > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has > > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles? > Per

Re: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-29 Thread Justin Mason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Gregory writes: >But this duplicate went through (in chronological order): > sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net(66.35.250.206) > netmail00.services.quay.plus.net(212.159.14.218) > mail.force9.net [212.159.10.2] >De

RE: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-29 Thread Colin A. Bartlett
Charles Gregory Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:33 PM > Just at a rough guess, I would say that whoever resides on or near > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or 'force9.net' has > something strange in their mail handling that is re-mailing articles? Per my post just the other day, I have been receiving man

[SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-29 Thread Charles Gregory
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > Actually, I'm sorry Charles. You may have gotten 4 copies from me! I tried to take that into account. Including your 'direct' replies, the count is actually up to 5 or 6. The interesting thing, if you look at those headers is that there are about 4 or 5

Re: [SAtalk] Duplicate postings. (clarification)

2003-10-29 Thread Stefan Hornburg
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:32:41 -0500 (EST) Charles Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Santerre wrote: > > Actually, I'm sorry Charles. You may have gotten 4 copies from me! > > I tried to take that into account. Including your 'direct' replies, the > count is actually u