Thomas Fernandez wrote:
>> so, be a RealMan™ when this FemaleLogic® animal tells ya "you CANNOT
>> do any transfers with an expired certificate". :)
>>
> Those who say "cannot do" should step aside for those who just do: You
> can indeed do transfers with an expired cert, unless the email soft
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:21:11 +0300
vitalie vrabie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so, be a RealMan™ when this FemaleLogic® animal tells ya "you CANNOT
> do any transfers with an expired certificate". :)
Those who say "cannot do" should step aside for those who just do: You
can indeed do transfers wi
George M. Menegakis wrote:
> Real men always have the last word.. "Yes, dear!" :-)
>
exactly.
so, be a RealMan™ when this FemaleLogic® animal tells ya "you CANNOT do
any transfers with an expired certificate". :)
...or don't fear the expenses of the divorce, considering the benefits
of
Hello Rick,
> In my house *** I *** am the captain of the ship
> ... but I know who the admiral is
Real men always have the last word.. "Yes, dear!" :-)
--
George M. Menegakis
Using The Bat v3.99.3 on Windows XP Service Pack 2
___
Rick Grunwald wrote:
> In my house *** I *** am the captain of the ship
>
sure. and it's YOUR duty to navigate around expired certificates and
other sort of underwater rocks.
> ... but I know who the admiral is :))
>
mmm... Ritlabs?
or Mother Nature, that 'stated' that rocks could deadly
Hello vitalie
On Wednesday, June 6, 2007 you wrote:
> and further on with psychology, it means they're completely ruled by
> their wives at home?
In my house *** I *** am the captain of the ship
... but I know who the admiral is :))
--
Rick
The Bat Version 3.99.8
__
Hello Goncalo
On Thursday, June 7, 2007 you wrote:
> I've seen that one is now able to remove attachments
> from a received message. Personally I don't like that.
They key is ABLE. You can choose. I persoanlly LIKE to be able to
remove attachments especially from Incredimail users :))
--
Rick
Th
On Thursday, June 7, 2007, 12:19:45 PM, Goncalo Farias wrote:
> Nonetheless, I agree that one shouldn't have the possibility to edit
> a received message. I've seen that one is now able to remove
> attachments from a received message. Personally I don't like that.
once you concede they should be
Dwight A Corrin wrote:
>> Ritlabs is of the opinion that that it is in your best interest if
>> they deny you the option of accepting an expired certificate.
>>
> They have a strong paternalistic streak.
and further on with psychology, it means they're completely ruled by
their wives at home?
On Saturday, June 2, 2007, 8:54:04 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> Ritlabs is of the opinion that that it is in your best interest if
> they deny you the option of accepting an expired certificate.
They have a strong paternalistic streak. Lots like not letting one
edit messages after receipt.
--
Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> vv> AFAIR, Max commented on this already. if your user is qualified indeed,
> vv> he/she'd put something like stunnel.
>
> Does Max want to call each
> sysad and remind him to please update his cert, as otherwise TB!-users
> are unable to do their mailing?
>
why don'
Hello vitalie,
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:48:12 +0300 GMT (04/06/2007, 06:48 +0700 GMT),
vitalie vrabie wrote:
>>I can see RitLabs Point... BUT after 30+ years of Eng and support
>>experience I'd have to second the suggestion that Alerting a User
>>is Imperative... Denying a (knowledgeabl
Jim Brown wrote:
>I can see RitLabs Point... BUT after 30+ years of Eng and support
>experience I'd have to second the suggestion that Alerting a User
>is Imperative... Denying a (knowledgeable) user after the Alert is
>excessive and Not in the best interest of the user OR product :
Thomas Fernandez wrote:
So, that's why folks who need to accept an expired certificate and
really know what they are doing, cannot use TB! but must use Outlook.
or Icedove..
--
C.K.
Current beta is 3.99.07 | 'Using TBBETA' information:
Hello Rick,
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:06:00 -0400 GMT (03/06/2007, 09:06 +0700 GMT),
Rick Grunwald wrote:
>> So, that's why folks who need to accept an expired certificate and
>> really know what they are doing, cannot use TB! but must use Outlook.
>> I'm a bit sad that Ritlabs is not interested in t
Hi Thomas,
JB>>Though Outlook would have let me ignore this fault... :>)
>
JB>>Sorry to bother the list...
>
> Ritlabs is of the opinion that that it is in your best interest if
> they deny you the option of accepting an expired certificate. They say
> that they have heard of a grandmoth
> So, that's why folks who need to accept an expired certificate and
> really know what they are doing, cannot use TB! but must use Outlook.
> I'm a bit sad that Ritlabs is not interested in those customers who
> know what they are doing any more.
Can this be true?
--
Rick
The Bat Version 3.99.8
Hello Jim,
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:57:32 -0400 GMT (03/06/2007, 00:57 +0700 GMT),
Jim Brown wrote:
>> A secure connection to the server could not be established. Account:
>> 'email.cisco.com', Server: 'email.cisco.com', Protocol: POP3, Port:
>> 995, Secure(SSL): Yes, Error Number: 0x800CCC1A
JB>
Hi Folks,
>>6/1/2007, 14:00:36: FETCH - Certificate S/N: 432AECC1000303CF, algorithm:
>>RSA (1024 bits),
>> issued from 27 Mar 2006 to 27 Mar 2008, for 1 host(s): email.cisco.com.
>>6/1/2007, 14:00:36: FETCH - Owner: US, CA, San Jose, CIsco Systems, EMS,
>>email.cisco.com.
>>6/1/2007, 14:00:
19 matches
Mail list logo
