On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 11:17:08AM +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
| On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
| > Isn't that what "Undisclosed Recipients:" is meant for?
| Please note that Outlook mailers actaully violate the RFC's
Does this surprise anyone?I didn't think so.
| headers_
On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote:
> | Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> |
> | DQ> Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | DQ>
> | DQ> > And a few slightly questionable scores:
> | DQ> >
> | DQ> > - This was 0.87 before.
Daniel Quinlan wrote:
>> I think this one should go. [FROM_AND_TO_SAME] is a common way to
>> send email to a large list of people without subjecting them all to
>> the address list.
"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't that what "Undisclosed Recipients:" is meant for?
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 01:54:13PM -0700, Daniel Quinlan wrote:
| Craig R Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Changed back to 0.5 -- as mentioned in previous message, this is
| > triggering on the sourceforge-appended footers on mailing list
| > mails.
|
| Maybe it would be better to fin
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0700, Craig R Hughes wrote:
| Daniel Quinlan wrote:
|
| DQ> Michael Moncur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| DQ>
| DQ> > And a few slightly questionable scores:
| DQ> >
| DQ> > - This was 0.87 before. Less and less useful?
| DQ> > score FROM_AND_TO_SAME
On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:59:08PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
| On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 the voices made Michael Moncur write:
|
| > When a new release comes out I like to be anal-retentive and go through the
| > GA second-guessing its scores. This is my report for 2.30.
|
| > - This works well
