Am 03.10.2014 um 17:46 schrieb Nick Edwards: > thats funny, I could have sworn I replied and addressed to jdebert
if you refer to me you are not in the position to decide that > oh lookie, so I did, you just cant help yourself fool, I think we know > who the paranoid delusional stalker is reindl, get help, but no one > here is qualified to give you the help you need, and might i remind > you again dumb fuck, I was on this list a long time before you showed > up here, so check hte definition of stalk the point is that i never talked to you or care where you are you permanently opening your mouth unasked everywhere in my directtion > you fruitcake, I warned you what would happen if you contact me > again, what happens now is your own doing skitzo boy. you are not in the position to warn anybody and i did not contact you until you decdied to continue your attacks http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.roundcube.user/4500 >>> Nick Edwards | 27 Sep 12:14 2014 >>> mind your own business , you dont get to play netcopper either so don't you and we would have no problem at all > On 10/3/14, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >> >> Am 03.10.2014 um 12:56 schrieb Nick Edwards: >>> jdebert, (since im not reply to the bully troll) >>> >>> he doesnt learn, worried about flame wars but kicks off by calling >>> other people smart asses, just ignore him, most of the rest of the >>> internet has done for a while >> >> creep away damned stalker - nobody asked you and the only smart >> ass here is you - what was that with "don't write me again and >> I wont have any need to abuse you back" below and how did you >> treat roundcube developers and continue to abuse against me days >> later each time you are bored and seek posts from me? >> >> Nick Edwards | 26 Sep 18:01 2014 >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.roundcube.user/4500 >> >> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- >> Betreff: Re: [RCU] Time for new HTML Editor >> Datum: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:14:43 +1000 >> Von: Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwa...@gmail.com> >> An: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> >> >> you hate how im talking to you? good! now you know what it felt like >> by all those newbies you belittle and bully, maybe you will think >> twice about bullying them and coming over as a fucking dictator again >> huh but probably not, nutters like you never learn. >> >> so you fuck off and dont write me again, and I wont have any need to >> abuse you back. >> >> starting now, so if you want no contact you better fucking not reply >> >>> On 10/1/14, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >>>> Am 30.09.2014 um 18:12 schrieb jdebert: >>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:19:10 +0200 >>>>> Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 29.09.2014 um 19:14 schrieb Nels Lindquist: >>>>>>> On 9/29/2014 10:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> please remove markers like [SPAM] if a mesage was flagged before >>>>>>>> reply - they lead often that a message goes to junk- instead the >>>>>>>> list-folder :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please teach your users to filter on the List-ID: header rather than >>>>>>> Subject: for this list. The issue can be entirely avoided without >>>>>>> requiring everyone else in the world to alter their behaviour >>>>>> >>>>>> the [SPAM] marker comes *before* all other sieve-filters >>>>>> otherwise it would not catch faked From-Headers >>>>>> >>>>>> it's not a big deal but i see that mistake sometimes >>>>>> also in business communication - not real good >>>>> >>>>> I do not see any subject lines in this thread with [SPAM] in them. I >>>>> rarely see them in this list at all. (I suspect people are aware it can >>>>> cause some poorer filtering implementations to delete them.) >>>> >>>> so what - this was a new thread to not hijack others >>>> >>>>> Perhaps you need to look closer to home for this problem? >>>> >>>> for sure not if it appears in the middle of subjects >>>> >>>>> Meantime, it is highly recommended that, if someone subscribes to a >>>>> list about spam, one MUST make an exception to their filtering rules as >>>>> previously mentioned. It's also very sensible. It is ridiculous to >>>>> insist that people talking about spam stop using the word "spam" >>>> >>>> the SA list has a -100 score >>>> >>>> that won't change the fact that it is in general a bad >>>> attitude not look at the subject of a mail someone >>>> writes, but so be it until another flamewar starts >>>> because some smart asses need to reply to a hint >>>> wich needs no repsonse at all and was intended to >>>> just point out a common mistake
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
