On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:09:30PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
| Shamless plug: sign up for totally spam-free forwarding address
| at http://pay2send.com
Ewww! *recoils in disgust*
You don't pay to send, we make others pay to send to you. - if this
system become widespread, then you surely
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time) is a
broken system.
i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and correct.
Shamless plug: sign up for totally spam-free forwarding address
at
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 05:09:30PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 04:02, Craig Sanders wrote:
sorry, a system that only works sometimes (or even most of the time)
is a broken system.
i prefer to know that my system's behaviour will be consistent and
correct.
on Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:07:39AM +1000, Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:09:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I'm
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[Using DNS RBLs to block spam is bad.]
As many people have noted, for pretty much _any_
given IP, your odds are good that most of the mail received from it is
spam. It doesn't do much for the legit mail that comes through. Given
that we now _do_
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:49:36 +0100
It's the same sort of thinking that's causing no end of trouble for people
trying to communicate with AOL users:
http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=96264
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/13/2215207.shtml?tid=120
I've got
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:50:51 +0200
Julian Mehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, you can't make such a general statement that using content-based filters
is better than using DNS RBLs. It wholly depends on the listing policy of
the RBL, and in most cases, content-based filters will be the far
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote:
This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Thank you!
From:debian-devel@lists.debian.org
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote:
This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to
[EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
[W3C's autoresponder]
This one's a bit different. It's only asking for permission to archive
posts to the list - I guess W3C's just trying,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I'm coming to the view that we're approaching the era where all mail is
going to have to be subject to filtering, at the MTA level.
Depends on how
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:40:15PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:57:54PM +1000, Matthew Palmer ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
[W3C's autoresponder]
This one's a bit different.
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 11:09:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:40:15 +1000
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:04:39AM +0100, Karsten M. Self wrote:
I'm coming to the view that we're approaching the era where all mail is
going to have to
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 06:40:46PM -0400, W3C List Manager wrote:
This is a response to a message apparently sent from your address to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: Thank you!
From:debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Date:Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:40:45 --0400
Your message has
14 matches
Mail list logo