Chris Santerre wrote:
Two sons, 4 and 6. FINALLY someone at my level to play with!! :)
And yes, they already can ice skate and play hockey.
Surely you would have RMA'd them by now if they couldn't. :)
On Wednesday September 06 2006 3:51 pm, Chris Santerre wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:53 PM
> > To: spamassassin
> > Subject: Re: Antidrug.cf, call to cease RDJ updates.
Title: RE: Antidrug.cf, call to cease RDJ updates.
> -Original Message-
> From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:53 PM
> To: spamassassin
> Subject: Re: Antidrug.cf, call to cease RDJ updates.
>
>
> DAve wr
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Thielen wrote:
Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
Well, eventually I might do some updates and split antidrug into
antidrug-pre30.cf, antidrug-30x.cf, antidrug-31x.cf, etc. But my spare
time is near zero nowdays. I've got a 7-week
DAve wrote:
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Thielen wrote:
Matt,
Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
publishing updates to antidrug I will change the URL in RDJ to
wherever eventually move it. If, however, there are no additional
updates foreseen i
Rick Macdougall wrote:
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Thielen wrote:
Matt,
Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
publishing updates to antidrug I will change the URL in RDJ to
wherever eventually move it. If, however, there are no additional
updates foreseen it should prob
Matt Kettler wrote:
Chris Thielen wrote:
Matt,
Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
publishing updates to antidrug I will change the URL in RDJ to
wherever eventually move it. If, however, there are no additional
updates foreseen it should probably be removed from RDJ
Chris Thielen wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
> publishing updates to antidrug I will change the URL in RDJ to
> wherever eventually move it. If, however, there are no additional
> updates foreseen it should probably be removed from RDJ altogether.
Matt,
Does antidrug still get updates? If you are going to continue
publishing updates to antidrug I will change the URL in RDJ to wherever
eventually move it. If, however, there are no additional updates
foreseen it should probably be removed from RDJ altogether.
LMK.
Chris Thielen
Matt
Title: RE: Antidrug.cf, call to cease RDJ updates.
>
> So, here's your first (of 3) warning to disable RDJ for antidrug until
> the move is completed. (If you have SA 3.0.0 or higher you
> shouldn't be
> using antidrug.cf anyway).
I still get hits to the origi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sorry to ask a question I *think* I've seen the answer to, but should I
> not use SARE's antidrug.cf with SA 3.1.0? I think I remember seeing
> something about that on this list.
Antidrug.cf isn't SARE's, it's mine. (Not that I have anything against SARE, but
I've ne
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 10:10:18AM -0800, Justin Mason wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Chris Thielen writes:
> > Did SA 2.6x support any if* statements in rulesfiles like 3.0 does (eg:
> > ifplugin)?
>
> Chris, pretty sure it didn't.
ISTR that it tried to, but it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Thielen writes:
> Did SA 2.6x support any if* statements in rulesfiles like 3.0 does (eg:
> ifplugin)?
Chris, pretty sure it didn't.
- --j.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFDjzyKMJF5cimL
Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 08:57 AM 12/1/2005, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
>> Doesn't RDJ have a rule renaming feature? I seem to remember getting
>> a message from RDJ at one point saying that one of the SARE rules had
>> changed names.
>
>
> Renaming is quite different. If you re-name, at least your use
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At 08:57 AM 12/1/2005, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >Doesn't RDJ have a rule renaming feature? I seem to remember getting
> >a message from RDJ at one point saying that one of the SARE rules had
> >changed names.
>
> Renaming is quite different. If you r
At 08:57 AM 12/1/2005, Bowie Bailey wrote:
Doesn't RDJ have a rule renaming feature? I seem to remember getting
a message from RDJ at one point saying that one of the SARE rules had
changed names.
Renaming is quite different. If you re-name, at least your users will know
about it because thei
From: Matt Kettler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> mouss wrote:
> >
> > I didn't say so but had in mind:
> > - antidrug.cf: just a notice (which also provides a link to the
> > pre30 version)
> > - a pre30 version.
>
> No way.
>
> That creates a problem for users of SA 2.64 who are RDJ'ing
> ant
mouss wrote:
> Matt Kettler a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> Ron, I understood you. What I don't understand is if that's what mouss is
>> suggesting.
>>
>> As previously said, I read mouss as suggesting I empty antidrug.cf. I
>> did not
>> read you as suggesting this.
>
>
> I didn't say so but had in mind:
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Ron, I understood you. What I don't understand is if that's what mouss is
suggesting.
As previously said, I read mouss as suggesting I empty antidrug.cf. I did not
read you as suggesting this.
I didn't say so but had in mind:
- antidrug.cf: just a notice (which also p
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Matt Kettler writes:
>
>>At 10:33 AM 11/30/2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Matt Kettler writes:
>>>
At 09:36 PM 11/29/2005, mouss wrote:
>it would be good to make the file empty, only containing this info. this
>way, even those who miss this message (and the
Matt Kettler writes:
>
> At 10:33 AM 11/30/2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >Matt Kettler writes:
> > >
> > > At 09:36 PM 11/29/2005, mouss wrote:
> > > >it would be good to make the file empty, only containing this info. this
> > > >way, even those who miss this message (and the previous one) still
At 10:33 AM 11/30/2005, Ron Johnson wrote:
Matt Kettler writes:
>
> At 09:36 PM 11/29/2005, mouss wrote:
> >it would be good to make the file empty, only containing this info. this
> >way, even those who miss this message (and the previous one) still have a
> >chance to get the info.
>
> Yes, bu
Matt Kettler wrote:
> Yes, but there are still users out there that aren't using SA 3.0.x
> due to perl version problems. For them, I still wish to make the file
> available.
Or because we've seen no pressing reason to upgrade; 2.64 is working
Just Fine Thanks. (Not to mention a good reason NOT
Matt Kettler writes:
>
> At 09:36 PM 11/29/2005, mouss wrote:
> >it would be good to make the file empty, only containing this info. this
> >way, even those who miss this message (and the previous one) still have a
> >chance to get the info.
>
> Yes, but there are still users out there that are
At 09:36 PM 11/29/2005, mouss wrote:
it would be good to make the file empty, only containing this info. this
way, even those who miss this message (and the previous one) still have a
chance to get the info.
Yes, but there are still users out there that aren't using SA 3.0.x due to
perl versi
Matt Kettler a écrit :
Since a lot of people are still using antidrug.cf, I'm making a public
announcement here to clarify.
Antidrug.cf is deprecated and obsolete for all users of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 or
higher. These rules are now a part of the standard SA distribution, and any
improvements will
sassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Antidrug.cf
>
>
>How completely rude. What are you, twelve years old?
>
>jdow wrote:
>> It seems anabolic steroids are flat out missed by
>antidrug.cf. Of course,
>> I observe the idiot Apache spam trap on the spamassassin
>l
My apologies to any twelve-year-olds on this list who have managed to
absorb more than the most fundamental principles of politeness.
snowjack wrote:
How completely rude. What are you, twelve years old?
jdow wrote:
It seems anabolic steroids are flat out missed by antidrug.cf. Of course,
I observ
How completely rude. What are you, twelve years old?
jdow wrote:
It seems anabolic steroids are flat out missed by antidrug.cf. Of course,
I observe the idiot Apache spam trap on the spamassassin list does catch
the message sample when I attach it. Somebody needs to apply a clue bat
to the Apache m
29 matches
Mail list logo
