Re: [eug-lug]Naive BSD question
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 03:16:16PM -0800, Patrick R. Wade wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:49:33PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > >Softdep makes fsck _very_ reliable, > > > > The most utterly hosed filesystem i have ever had the misfortune to > be afflicted with, came to me courtesy of softupdates. > > The enormous files with the immutable flag set, the files with negative > timestamps, the files with names from the content of other files, the > files with content based on the names of other files; i shudder still to > think of it. I don't think it gave me files with slashes in the filenames, > but i would not have been surprised if it had. Was this recently? -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]Naive BSD question
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 11:49:33PM -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote: > >Softdep makes fsck _very_ reliable, > The most utterly hosed filesystem i have ever had the misfortune to be afflicted with, came to me courtesy of softupdates. The enormous files with the immutable flag set, the files with negative timestamps, the files with names from the content of other files, the files with content based on the names of other files; i shudder still to think of it. I don't think it gave me files with slashes in the filenames, but i would not have been surprised if it had. Dan Bernstein tells us that softupdates should not be used on filesystems that are to be used for mail delivery, as the filesystem in question cannot be relied upon to not lose mail. He is, shall i say, correct. -- "That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX." "Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."--Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon" ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]EXTREMISM IN DEFENSE OF LINUX MUST BE CONDEMNED
Well said, Bob. May I remind everyone again that we have a separate "activism" list. If you think a post should *maybe* go there instead, post it there and thanks for posting at all! I agree with these sentiments, although the statment, "The Linux community is being invaded by zealots, extremists and kooks" causes me some distress! I imagine that the majority of the citizens of the world are not "normal" by any practical measure -- although zealots, extremists, and kooks are a bit beyond the unpractical "norm"; and if we do desire the success of Linux, then we will have to allow our Linux-using community to expand beyond what, say, 1/2 of the folks might be comfortable with. Here's a classic example: Zapatistas in Mexico. A *new* generation of zaps, who are being taught linux starting in elementary school. Certainly there are many conformists in their population, as there are here, however the rebels among them (extremists and kooks even!) are now being empowered with high-quality, highly powerful, and FREE tools by their goverment. In my crystal ball, the future is hazy, but I see more use of Linux. That means linux in the server room, on the desktop, and also in the hands of extremists, and even terrorists. We'd better get used to it, and decide how to respond, because it doesn't belong to us. I also do not believe that we can (or should [try to]) turn people into conformists via Linux. Thoughts? Thanks for your time, freaks = ) Ben On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:42:45 + "Bob Crandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Hi, | | Here is something you might want to read, at least the first part. | | LINUX PIPELINE NEWSLETTER | http://www.linuxpipeline.com/ | February 3, 2004 | | EXTREMISM IN DEFENSE OF LINUX MUST BE CONDEMNED | | I've been doing a bit of Googling today, and I've discovered that | there's something missing from the statements by Linux leaders about | the MyDoom attack. It needs to be said: | | Vigilante action is wrong. The author or authors of the MyDoom virus | should be prosecuted with the full vigor of the law. They are | villains, they should be thrown into prison and made into examples | to make the entire community of computer criminals afraid. | | The Linux community is being invaded by zealots, extremists and | kooks who are, in fact, doing far more damage to the Linux community | itself than to anyone else. | ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]lrint()
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 12:00:12PM -0800, Bob Miller wrote: > Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > Why does the following: > > > > [...] > > > > when compiled with: > > > > gcc -Wall -lm -o lrint lrint.c > > > > always complain: > > > > lrint.c: In function `main': > > lrint.c:9: warning: implicit declaration of function `lrint' > > > > ? > > > > Works fine though. > > lrint() is part of the C99 standard. If you add "-std=c99" or > "-std=gnu99" to your compile line, the warning won't happen. > > It works fine because the function is in libc whether or not the > compiler saw the declaration, so the linker works normally. Once upon > a time (circa 1975-1980), common C practice was to declare practically > nothing, and let the compiler and linker figure everything out. > Prior to ANSI C, there were no function prototypes, for example. > > > Also, what's the difference between lrint() and (long)rint()? I mean, > > why even have lrint? Faster because it's integer only? > > Take a look at . If you can get the compiler flags > right, you can compile lrint() into a single instruction, fistpl. > That would seem to be faster than the two-or-more instruction sequence > of rounding the double, then converting to int. > > This compiler invocation will generate the fistpl instruction on my > compiler (gcc 3.2.3 gentoo), though it's far from fully optimized. > > gcc -o lrint -Wall -std=gnu99 lrint.c -O -lm > > C is truly portable assembler. Thanks, Bob. I was looking into it because transcode uses lrint, but it is not in *BSD. Now I know how to handle it for *BSD, and make it a little better on Linux :) -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
[eug-lug]ANNOUNCEMENT: February PLUG Meeting
Sorry for the late announcement, but MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT The Portland Linux/Unix Group will meet 7 PM Thursday February 5, 2003 at Portland State University in the Smith Memorial Center Room 298 On the block bounded by SW Montgomery, SW Broadway (7th), SW Harrison, and SW Park (9th) ** PRESENTATION User Mode Linux (Running Linux under Linux) by Chris Jantzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Agenda: 7:00 - 7:30 Business We will discuss the status of our ongoing projects including the monthly hands on clinics, PLUG for Education, etc. 7:30 - 8:30 Presentation See above 9:00 - ... Beer The Lucky Labrador Brewing Company 915 SE Hawthorne David Mandel Chief Activist Portland Linux/Unix Group 560 SE Alexander Corvallis, Oregon 97333 (541) 684-4644 at work (541) 730-5285 mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. The Mid Willamette Valley Linux Users Group meets at Oregon State University (generally Owen Hall room 101) on the first Tuesday of the month. See http://www.mwvlug.org/ for details. P.S. The Salem Linux Users Group is renewing itself. See http://www.salemlug.org for details. P.S. The Eugene Linux Users Group meets regularly. See http://www.euglug.org for details. == David Mandel, Instructorhttp://www.PioneerPacific.edu Other Affiliations David Mandelhttp://www.DavidMandel.com Portland Linux/Unix Group http://pdxLinux.org LinuxFund http://LinuxFund.org == ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]Re: Naive BSD question
Robert M. Solovay wrote:
> If I'm running a dual-boot Linux BSD system, it looks like Linux can't
> read the BSD FFS file system. {At least my linux system mount command
> doesn't talk about ffs; it does mention ufs.}
You need to build support for the filesystem into your kernel. In the
kernel configuration, it's called UFS, previous discussion
notwithstanding.
I'm guessing you already have BSD partition table support in your
kernel if you've gotten a dual-boot system working.
If you're using a generic kernel, it may be a simple matter
of "modprobe ufs".
--
Bob Miller K
kbobsoft software consulting
http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]lrint()
Jacob Meuser wrote: > Why does the following: > > [...] > > when compiled with: > > gcc -Wall -lm -o lrint lrint.c > > always complain: > > lrint.c: In function `main': > lrint.c:9: warning: implicit declaration of function `lrint' > > ? > > Works fine though. lrint() is part of the C99 standard. If you add "-std=c99" or "-std=gnu99" to your compile line, the warning won't happen. It works fine because the function is in libc whether or not the compiler saw the declaration, so the linker works normally. Once upon a time (circa 1975-1980), common C practice was to declare practically nothing, and let the compiler and linker figure everything out. Prior to ANSI C, there were no function prototypes, for example. > Also, what's the difference between lrint() and (long)rint()? I mean, > why even have lrint? Faster because it's integer only? Take a look at . If you can get the compiler flags right, you can compile lrint() into a single instruction, fistpl. That would seem to be faster than the two-or-more instruction sequence of rounding the double, then converting to int. This compiler invocation will generate the fistpl instruction on my compiler (gcc 3.2.3 gentoo), though it's far from fully optimized. gcc -o lrint -Wall -std=gnu99 lrint.c -O -lm C is truly portable assembler. -- Bob Miller K kbobsoft software consulting http://kbobsoft.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]Re: Naive BSD question
So to get back to a variant of my original question:
If I'm running a dual-boot Linux BSD system, it looks like Linux can't
read the BSD FFS file system. {At least my linux system mount command
doesn't talk about ffs; it does mention ufs.}
--Bob Solovay
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:20:03PM -0800, Cory Petkovsek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 08:07:01PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I believe all the BSDs use the Fast File System* (ffs). But that
> > > shouldn't be a problem for want you want to do - at least not from
> > > the BSD side of things. You just need to specify what Type of file
> > > system /home is in your /etc/fstab file. I'd be very surprised if
> > > Linux couldn't mount a FFS partition. see mount(8) and mount_ext2fs(8)
> > > in your version of BSD.
> >
> > FFS is the old name for UFS (the Unix File System), which is the current
> > standard for at least freebsd and solaris.
>
> Um, no.
>
> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Filesystems-HOWTO-9.html#ufs
>
> --
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ___
> EuG-LUG mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
>
___
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
[eug-lug]ANNOUNCEMENT: February PLUG Meeting
Sorry for the late announcement, but MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT The Portland Linux/Unix Group will meet 7 PM Thursday February 5, 2003 at Portland State University in the Smith Memorial Center Room 298 On the block bounded by SW Montgomery, SW Broadway (7th), SW Harrison, and SW Park (9th) ** PRESENTATION User Mode Linux (Running Linux under Linux) by Chris Jantzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ** Agenda: 7:00 - 7:30 Business We will discuss the status of our ongoing projects including the monthly hands on clinics, PLUG for Education, etc. 7:30 - 8:30 Presentation See above 9:00 - ... Beer The Lucky Labrador Brewing Company 915 SE Hawthorne David Mandel Chief Activist Portland Linux/Unix Group 560 SE Alexander Corvallis, Oregon 97333 (541) 684-4644 at work (541) 730-5285 mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. The Mid Willamette Valley Linux Users Group meets at Oregon State University (generally Owen Hall room 101) on the first Tuesday of the month. See http://www.mwvlug.org/ for details. P.S. The Salem Linux Users Group is renewing itself. See http://www.salemlug.org for details. P.S. The Eugene Linux Users Group meets regularly. See http://www.euglug.org for details. == David Mandel, Instructorhttp://www.PioneerPacific.edu Other Affiliations David Mandelhttp://www.DavidMandel.com Portland Linux/Unix Group http://pdxLinux.org LinuxFund http://LinuxFund.org == ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]euglug.org ranked # 40 in Google for linux training window
It's nice to know she won't be stealing andy of EUGLUG's sales..What is she trying to steal? Nyal -- "Once you have pulled the pin out of Mr. Grenade, he is no longer your friend." An error occured while loading http://www.elizabethrichson.com: Unknown host www.elizabethrichson.com On Tuesday 03 February 2004 06:45 pm, Ben Barrett wrote: > Cool news, but time for some sort of consensus here. I'd like to know if > she's running her site for-profit, or what ?? I don't want to see our > group become link-mavens for sites that get advert-based funding or > otherwise are commercial. Does she know about LUGE, or the other LUG > directory? Cool we R0X0R !!! #40 AO AO $) 40! > > congrats, people > > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:46:45 -0800 (PST) > > Elizabeth Richson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I'm a web master, and I was just searching Google for linux training > | window. I found your domain, euglug.org ranked 40, which is pretty cool. > | > | My site is all about Computers - Software, too . Maybe we should link > | up? I wouldn't be stealing any of your sales, because all I do is write > | informational articles...not selling anything on my site at all. And most > | of my visitors write back to say that they love the fact that I only > | write good, quality info. As a matter of fact, I've got a pretty loyal > | following of people that come back over and over again (they use the site > | as a reference), so if you link to me, you should get some pretty good > | traffic from it -- which is always nice. > | > | Anyway, let me know if you'd like to swap links. I've already linked to > | you, and will keep it up there for a few days until I hear back. Hope to > | hear from you soon! > | > | Elizabeth Richson > | RAC IM: 391574. > | > | ___ > | EuG-LUG mailing list > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
[eug-lug]coder or killer?
http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz/ ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
[eug-lug]EXTREMISM IN DEFENSE OF LINUX MUST BE CONDEMNED
Hi, Here is something you might want to read, at least the first part. LINUX PIPELINE NEWSLETTER http://www.linuxpipeline.com/ February 3, 2004 EXTREMISM IN DEFENSE OF LINUX MUST BE CONDEMNED I've been doing a bit of Googling today, and I've discovered that there's something missing from the statements by Linux leaders about the MyDoom attack. It needs to be said: Vigilante action is wrong. The author or authors of the MyDoom virus should be prosecuted with the full vigor of the law. They are villains, they should be thrown into prison and made into examples to make the entire community of computer criminals afraid. The Linux community is being invaded by zealots, extremists and kooks who are, in fact, doing far more damage to the Linux community itself than to anyone else. One of today's lead stories touches on this bad element within the open source community. The headline is "Extremist Linux Advocates Doing More Harm Than Good," and the story describes the threats, abuse and foul language brought to bear against individuals and organizations that Linux extremists have decided are enemies of Linux. http://www.linuxpipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=17601634 The story begins: Industry watcher Rob Enderle no longer responds to angry e-mails from Linux supporters. The principal analyst for the Enderle Group (San Jose, Calif.) says he replied to the first thousand or so. But after that, the anger and profanities that many of the missives contained began to wear on him. "I've been threatened and other analysts have been threatened, as well," Enderle said. "Some of the e-mail is incredibly vile... We thought about it for nearly a day before deciding to publish the story; I was concerned that it might simply be a hatchet job against the Linux community. We finally decided to publish it - and one thing that changed my mind is the fact that I've gotten the nastygrams too. It is not a perfect story. There's going to be some elements of that story that you hate. But I urge you to read it over with an open mind, because the core of the story is true: Linux *is* attracting extremists, and the extremists *are* damaging the credibility of the entire community. The authors of hateful messages against Linux critics should be given punishment appropriate to their actions. A tiny few should face criminal prosecution for their violent threats; the vast majority should simply be taken out to the schoolyard and spanked. Laura DiDio, an analyst with The Yankee Group in Boston, is right in saying: "The open-source and Linux community in 2004 is going to have to distance themselves from the questionable tactics of this fringe element of Linux extremists. If they don't, it's going to hurt them more than SCO can." That's going to be hard to do, given that the responsible elements of the Linux and open source community have no legal or financial bludgeons with which to bring the kooks and criminals into line. The kooks and criminals may intend to harm Linux's enemies, but the Linux community is being hurt more. Vigilante action, threats and nasty language simply serve to help Linux's enemies create the impression that Linux is not suitable for a business environment. They need to be stopped, somehow. One good start is for Linux leaders to unequivocally condemn the deplorable behavior, starting with us, now. --Mitch Wagner, Co-Editor, Linux Pipeline http://www.linuxpipeline.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Advertisement --- Maximize the potential of Linux with CA Management Software. CA solutions can backup, secure and manage your Linux implementation, while also allowing seamless integration into your existing infrastructure. As a result, Linux can be easily adopted into your enterprise. To find out more about our continuing commitment to Linux innovations, visit http://www.ca.com/linux - IN THIS ISSUE IN THIS ISSUE 1. Special Report: MyDoom 2. Only The Best Linux And Open-Source News 3. Trends: Extremist Linux Advocates Doing More Harm Than Good 4. Review: SuSE 9.0: A Distro Worth Paying For 5. Voting Booth: Is Desktop Linux 5-10 Years Out? 6. Expert Views: Linux Needs A Committed Champion 7. Dig Into Open Source Network Management Tools in Product Finder 8. Check Out The Linux Pipeline Topic Categories - Core Linux - Applications - Enterprise Open Source - Business 9. Tell A Colleague About Linux Pipeline Newsletter 10. Have You Discovered The Other Pipelines? 11. Change Your Subscription Options 1. SPECIAL REPORT: MYDOOM SCO Moves Web Site To Battle MyDoom; Microsoft Braces For Hit A MyDoom variant hit Microsoft's site on Tuesday. SCO moved its site to another URL after being KO'd by a denial-of-service attack. http://www.linuxpipeline.com/news/17601576 MyDoom Brings Down SCO Site http://www.linuxpipeline.com/news/17601331 Microsoft Offers Bounty For MyDoom Author http://www.
Re: [eug-lug]lrint()
Jacob Meuser wrote:
Why does the following:
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
long int a;
a = lrint(2.1314);
printf("a = %li\n", a);
exit(0);
}
when compiled with:
gcc -Wall -lm -o lrint lrint.c
always complain:
lrint.c: In function `main':
lrint.c:9: warning: implicit declaration of function `lrint'
?
Works fine though.
Also, what's the difference between lrint() and (long)rint()? I mean,
why even have lrint? Faster because it's integer only?
It works because it's acceptable. You get compiler warnings because
your constant argument to lrint is not explicitly cast as type double.
In a nutshell, C is strongly typed and gcc -Wall will point this out to you.
Looks like they generate a different set of errno returns under some
circumstances and rint return type is double.
Steve
___
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
[eug-lug]lrint()
Why does the following:
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
long int a;
a = lrint(2.1314);
printf("a = %li\n", a);
exit(0);
}
when compiled with:
gcc -Wall -lm -o lrint lrint.c
always complain:
lrint.c: In function `main':
lrint.c:9: warning: implicit declaration of function `lrint'
?
Works fine though.
Also, what's the difference between lrint() and (long)rint()? I mean,
why even have lrint? Faster because it's integer only?
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
EuG-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]euglug.org ranked # 40 in Google for linux training window
Ya! Egg on face. This has been going on for a while; google on her name gave these examples of similar situations: old: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/Weird_spam_RCU_guys_with_website_should_look_out_for%25/m_1449911/tm.htm (RC hobbyists? ~2 years ago!) just recent: http://www.rb21.com/news/index.php/t/31489/0/ (tiki dev) http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3768760&forum_id=1471 (sax users) The whois record shows this: Registrant: apple 2198 Apple dr. Columbus, OH 43212 US Domain name: ELIZABETHRICHSON.COM Administrative Contact: Johnson, Muliya [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2198 Apple dr. Columbus, OH 43212 US 410-678-8768 Technical Contact: Customer Service, EV1 Servers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 SW Freeway Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77098 US +1.717873Fax: +1.7139429332 isn't there some law...? (d'oh) but HEY, we're still cool. Yeah, we rock! (d'oh) On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:45:28 -0800 Ben Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Cool news, but time for some sort of consensus here. I'd like to know if | she's running her site for-profit, or what ?? I don't want to see our | group become link-mavens for sites that get advert-based funding or | otherwise are commercial. Does she know about LUGE, or the other LUG | directory? Cool we R0X0R !!! #40 AO AO $) 40! | | congrats, people | | | On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:46:45 -0800 (PST) | Elizabeth Richson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | | I'm a web master, and I was just searching Google for linux training | | window. I found your domain, euglug.org ranked 40, which is pretty cool. | | | | | | My site is all about Computers - Software, too . Maybe we should link | | up? I wouldn't be stealing any of your sales, because all I do is write | | informational articles...not selling anything on my site at all. And | | most of my visitors write back to say that they love the fact that I | | only write good, quality info. As a matter of fact, I've got a pretty | | loyal following of people that come back over and over again (they use | | the site as a reference), so if you link to me, you should get some | | pretty good traffic from it -- which is always nice. | | | | Anyway, let me know if you'd like to swap links. I've already linked to | | you, and will keep it up there for a few days until I hear back. Hope to | | hear from you soon! | | | | Elizabeth Richson | | RAC IM: 391574. | | | | ___ | | EuG-LUG mailing list | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug | | | -- | ___ | EuG-LUG mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug -- ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]Naive BSD question
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 08:46:39PM -0800, T. Joseph Carter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 07:43:58PM -0801, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > Yes, that's what he meant. > > > > > > Now what would be cool is a journaled file system for bsd. Any one out > > > there? Perhaps when bsd supports xfs, reiser or ext3. > > > > Probably won't ever happen. UFS/FFS has been around for ages. Many > > BSD'ers take comfort in that. Look at the FFS in FreeBSD 5.x for > > state-of-the-art BSD filesystems. > > There's already a form of journaling present in BSD. It's not quite the > same as the stuff used by the Linux offerings, but it does log the changes > to assist when you need to fsck. I'm sketchy on details. Softdep makes fsck _very_ reliable, thus the ability to do background fsck (use the FS in the meantime). That's not the same as using a journalling fs, tho ... it's still FFS. IMHO, Linux suports journalling FSs because ext2 was not so reliable after crashes. FFS has been reliable for quite a while. IMHO, BSDers don't feel the need to implement a new fs. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
Re: [eug-lug]euglug.org ranked # 40 in Google for linux training window
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 08:26:37PM -0800, Jason wrote: > Well, at least the spammers are getting somewhat > creative. Or not. I think she really wants to swap links. Very possible she is using some kind of script->email_form, tho. Who knows tho ... maybe she paid some half-reformed spammer to actually run the script and send emails. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
