Re: [SAtalk] bigevil; chicknpox; weeds...

2004-01-29 Thread Chris Thielen
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 13:06, Douglas Kirkland wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday 26 January 2004 07:28, Thorsten Schacht wrote: > > Hey, > > > > What is your opinion to that cf's? > > Does it make sence to take them all, or maybe only parts of them? > > Is it a

Re: [SAtalk] bigevil; chicknpox; weeds...

2004-01-27 Thread Robert Menschel
Hello Thorsten, Monday, January 26, 2004, 7:28:21 AM, you wrote: TS> What is your opinion to that cf's? TS> Does it make sence to take them all, or maybe only parts of them? TS> Is it a good solution to install them whithout realy knowing how the TS> rules are build? TS> Only for private or also

RE: [SAtalk] bigevil; chicknpox; weeds...

2004-01-26 Thread Bret Miller
> What is your opinion to that cf's? > Does it make sence to take them all, or maybe only parts of > them? Is it a good solution to install them whithout realy > knowing how the rules are build? Only for private or also > good at company? It's always good to start slow in my opinion. We have backh

Re: [SAtalk] bigevil; chicknpox; weeds...

2004-01-26 Thread Douglas Kirkland
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 26 January 2004 07:28, Thorsten Schacht wrote: > Hey, > > What is your opinion to that cf's? > Does it make sence to take them all, or maybe only parts of them? > Is it a good solution to install them whithout realy knowing how the rules > a

RE: [SAtalk] bigevil; chicknpox; weeds...

2004-01-26 Thread Todd Schuldt
We use them all (bigevil; chicknpox; weeds; blackhair; tripwire...) and haven't looked back Todd IT Director -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thorsten Schacht Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SAtalk] bi