Re: [JOB] Senior Perl .. etc. etc. Bounce
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 05:40:31PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 02:26:00PM +, Rafiq Ismail (ADMIN) wrote: > > >... while talking to mx09.hotmail.com.: > RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So, he's bought a domain but not any actual mail storage or anything > tedious like that. Ho hum. Not exactly "professional-looking", is it? > Give me a demon.co.uk account any day... I can sympathise with their position -- if you set up your own mail system (say, MTA+popd) it's a whole lot less accessible than a hotmail/webmail account. Even if you can get to a cafe' you would then have to have open access to your pop3d or imapd (gasp!) to the world -- not a pleasant prospect. And you'd still be in the position where POP sucks compared to webmail. I think redirecting to a webmail account is perfectly reasonable thing to do. YMMV, Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ "If the sky is deep red, then I would buy you a new life, perfect shiny and new." -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: Dual boot
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 02:46:55PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > However, in file sharing situations, Unix's (default?) permission system > is utterly useless, and not nearly fine grained enough to cope with real > requirements in large offices. I once had a Unix sysadmin guy tell me > that if my requirements for access to files were more complex than the > system could deliver, then "I was just being disorganised, I should > think harder about who really needs access to this stuff". I felt like > punching the guy. I quite like the RedHat scheme of one GID for each UID. Then add users to the relevant groups. It breaks when number-of-groups exceeds some small power-of-2 but works well until then. > I've never looked into it but I imagine there are third part addons for > some Unixes that giver better permissioning capability. Anyone know of > any? Solaris and HP-UX were mentioned, I'll add AIX. AIX can do ACLs on NFS too (but only with another AIX). As others have said all different. So what you really want is a filesystem that is not platform specific: how about DCE/DFS that has ACLs, works across all Un*x (and PCs) and has it's own ACL commands! And is hugle complex and needs lots of training :-) -- Chris Benson
Antialiased fonts redux
I just thought I'd let people know that I know have a sawfish/gnome based RH7.1 (XFree 4.mumble) that groks anti-aliased fonts. Mozilla took one patch and a recompile to do it. AbiWord looks very pretty. Shiny. Dave
Re: Dual boot
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, robin szemeti wrote: > but would you feel happy mounting your Linux partitions on your WinXXX > box? .. Again, yes. If it's mounted read-only, then that's good enough for me. You're talking about a Windows virus that manages to screw up Windows so bad that it can't boot, but if that was my fear then I wouldn't feel at all having *nix on the same disc as it in the first place, whether or not it ever got mounted. If this virus managed to trash the disk then the damage is already done at that point. If the paranoia really runs that deep, then they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near each other anyhow. -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 05:09:56PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:27:22PM +, Tom Hukins wrote: > > >It is genuine - it's with sports.com. > > Good lord, they're _still_ tarting that one about? You'd think they'd > have realised by now that perl+mysql+inn+xml+apache doesn't usually come > for 25-35K (the range I got from at least three different agents). So this is stage one of economising? And stage two is to rightsize development back to the US? That being the "part" bit of "part onsite"? :-) Why do I have a distrust of satellite development setups? Nicholas Clark
RE: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
certainly sounds like the kind of job spec we'd have put out, and I do believe there is an open perl dev vacancy in London. Simon. [undoubtably bending all sorts of rules] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lucy McWilliam Sent: 21 December 2001 13:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd) Saw this on perl jobs and thought people might be interested. Oh, and Merry Christmas! -- Forwarded message -- Online URL for this job: http://jobs.perl.org/job/180 To subscribe to this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted: December 20, 2001 Job title: Senior Perl Programmer Company name: Open Source People Internal ID: SS Location: United Kingdom, London Pay rate: £30-45K + benefits Travel: 0% Terms of employment: Salaried employee Length of employment: Permanent Hours: Full time Onsite: some Description: Experienced Perl Programmer urgently required by a leading Internet company with a very flat operational structure. Candidates must have atleast 4yrs of hands on Perl development experience, must have MOD Perl experience together with Linux, Apache, MYSQL and XML experience. You will be working in a relaxed environment with a casual dress policy with like minded professionals who also share your passion for Perl hacking on opensource platforms. Does this sound like you? If so then E-mail now. Required skills: Perl, mod_perl, Linux, Apache, MySQL and XML
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:54:33PM +, Simon Wistow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:27:22PM +, Tom Hukins said: > > It is genuine - it's with sports.com. > > Who've just bought Sportal. So they'll be working with Dave Cross's old > code then. Which would be huge pleasure I'm sure :) Although I thought that Sports.com only bought the Sportal brand, not actually any of the codebase. >Although AFAIK (cos I'm now working with an Ex-Sportal > company) - most of their stuff runs on WebMacro. It was all Vignette when I was there - tho' I steered well clear of that! Dave... -- .sig missing...
Re: Dual boot
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 02:46:55PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Chris Benson wrote: > > But surely this discussion is pointless since everyone logs in as > > Administrator[*1] and leaves the permissions as they are, don't they. > Nix and NT share this trait. There are a number of common tasks that > should be do-able as a user but you actually have to be root/admin to do > them. Such as? Mounting CDs and floppies? the automounter does it setting up a PPP connection? your sysasdmin should have configured the appropriate setuid root stuff Installing software? if you can't install it in your home directory, then a user has no business trying to install it I use a Solaris machine as my desktop at work. I don't have root. I rarely need root. When I do it is to do things like install extra software for testing, or so I can do networky things. Every single one of those cases is legitimate development work, and I do it on a dev server where the admins will do that for me. Even on my own personal Linux desktop, where I do have root, I have used that capability [looks at logs] just once in the last 24 hours*. Today is not unusual. > Then people get into the habit of (for instance) always installing > new software as root/admin rather than checking to see what permissions > are _actually_ required. That's a people problem, not an OS problem. But on Windows this is more likely to be required. > However, in file sharing situations, Unix's (default?) permission system > is utterly useless, and not nearly fine grained enough to cope with real > requirements in large offices. Same as NT. Having a PDC and BDC and domain accounts is most definitely not the default, and it's a bugger to administer too by all accounts. On 'nix we have NIS to do that job, and whilst it's a bugger to set up properly and securely (some would argue that it *can't* be set up securely**) it is at least easy to administer once it has been. * - sudo apt-get update; sudo apt-get upgrade ** - I say that it depends how secure you need to be. It can certainly be secure enough for us to use at work for well over a hundred users, with probably the worst user demographic possible from a security PoV. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives. -- Winston Churchill
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl .. etc. etc. Bounce
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 02:26:00PM +, Rafiq Ismail (ADMIN) wrote: >... while talking to mx09.hotmail.com.: RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So, he's bought a domain but not any actual mail storage or anything tedious like that. Ho hum. Not exactly "professional-looking", is it? Give me a demon.co.uk account any day... R -- He's a deeply religious albino dog-catcher. She's a disco-crazy French-Canadian opera singer in the witness protection scheme. They fight crime!
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 04:01:08PM +, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > Tom Hukins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is genuine - it's with sports.com. > > OK, and how many people round here have NOT interviewed at sports.com? > Taking the spread of people hereabouts I know who _have_ interviewed > there I doubt there is a person in existence who would match their > criteria. Okay, perhaps I should rephrase what I wrote: The vacancy is genuine, but it may or may not be filled. ;-) Tom
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:27:22PM +, Tom Hukins wrote: >It is genuine - it's with sports.com. Good lord, they're _still_ tarting that one about? You'd think they'd have realised by now that perl+mysql+inn+xml+apache doesn't usually come for 25-35K (the range I got from at least three different agents). -- He's a superhumanly strong crooked paranormal investigator whom everyone believes is mad. She's a time-travelling hypochondriac former first lady from a family of eight older brothers. They fight crime!
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:54:33PM +, Simon Wistow wrote: > Who've just bought Sportal. So they'll be working with Dave Cross's old > code then. Although AFAIK (cos I'm now working with an Ex-Sportal > company) - most of their stuff runs on WebMacro. What's WebMacro? I think I recall seeing that sportal uses Vignette for content, while writing a parser for their stories. - ~C. -- $a="printf.net"; Chris Ball | chris@void.$a | www.$a | finger: chris@$a As to luck, there's the old miners' proverb: Gold is where you find it.
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
Tom Hukins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It is genuine - it's with sports.com. OK, and how many people round here have NOT interviewed at sports.com? Taking the spread of people hereabouts I know who _have_ interviewed there I doubt there is a person in existence who would match their criteria. -- David Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hirehttp://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Deep Purple Family Tree news http://www.slashrock.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:27:22PM +, Tom Hukins said: > It is genuine - it's with sports.com. Who've just bought Sportal. So they'll be working with Dave Cross's old code then. Although AFAIK (cos I'm now working with an Ex-Sportal company) - most of their stuff runs on WebMacro. Simon
Re: Dual boot
- Original Message - From: "Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Then people get into the habit of (for instance) always installing > new software as root/admin rather than checking to see what permissions > are _actually_ required. How many people run 'make tests' as root? ;) > The sudo command can be helpful > in these situations, and I'm not aware of anything in NT that operates > like the sudo command (although I guess you could write one). Runas is built into Win2k and does all the basic stuff sudo does. NT4 has a version of sudo in the resource kit i think (Its been a while since i've needed it.) Also there is a perl Win32 module by Dave Roth that lets you kick of process's as another user with the other users rights and enviroment so you could write wrappers in that if you needed to. Sudo is amazingly sophisicated though and i doubt you'd get full emulation, only thing sudo lacks i'd like to see is the ability to specify an MD5 checksum or similar for the binaries that the user is allowed to run, but then again i have the source... > However, in file sharing situations, Unix's (default?) permission system > is utterly useless, and not nearly fine grained enough to cope with real > requirements in large offices. I once had a Unix sysadmin guy tell me > that if my requirements for access to files were more complex than the > system could deliver > I've never looked into it but I imagine there are third part addons for > some Unixes that giver better permissioning capability. Anyone know of > any? Sun and HP have ACL add ons but I've not yet had the chance to play with them. The thing discourageing me is that they work differently and I'd have to learn a new scheme per unix. Something that makes us a lot more tied to a vendor than I'd like. Dean (An ex Windows boy) -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand. --- Anon
Re: Dual boot
- Original Message - From: "Chris Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But surely this discussion is pointless since everyone logs in as > Administrator[*1] How many people post to Linux groups as root? This is a user education issue more than a technical one, although i will conceed that Winws makes it stupidly difficult. > Every NT box I've ever seen has worked like this. And apparently XP users > default to administrative rights?? XP Bad. Win 2K better. > *1 because they need to be able to *do* things other than play Solitaire! One of the topics that came up at a GLLUG (Weird place to discuss Windows but hey :)) was bolting down a staff members PC. A demo laptop was shown running the whole of Office, MSProject and a couple of utils like IE and Outlook and the user had no admin rights, a tight profile and no ability to make OS changes without getting very inventive, something that the staff were not going to do, they didn't have the need nor the right to install new software on the machine. Windows can be made less than wide open it just requires a bit more work. And its worth it in support costs if nothing else ;) Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand. --- Anon
Re: Dual boot
- Original Message - From: "Rafiq Ismail (ADMIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >VMWare is rather expensive, Being able to make a disk non-persistent and rolling back after new software is added can be a godsend for testing OS patches and similar. > but try out win4lin. The last version of Win4Lin i saw required you to patch the kernel source and then recompile, making it a bit tied to the curent 'supported' versions. Haven't looked at it in a while but i was more impressed with VMWare, which i still use on a daily basis. >> Why? Read-only access to other filesystems seems like a Good Thing to me, > > unless you really like rebooting just to open a file on that partition... Use VMWare and set up Samba on the machines internal network :) > > BeOS, which I think you can still download for free [? yes], comes with a > > stripped down version of PartitionMagic Some of the Linux Caldera sets came with a cut down Partition magic but it could only deal with 8GB or smaller drives before it had to be registered. Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand. --- Anon
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:57:40PM +, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:47:21PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > > > >Saw this on perl jobs and thought people might be interested. Oh, and > >Merry Christmas! > > This may well be genuine, but I've been pretty unimpressed with OSP > before now, and Paul in particular (in fact I have no indication that > OSP is anyone other than Paul) - lots of vague stuff like this job > description, but getting very quiet when it came to specifics (like > "where in London"). It is genuine - it's with sports.com. Tom
Re: Dual boot
"Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've never looked into it but I imagine there are third part addons for > some Unixes that giver better permissioning capability. Anyone know of > any? Most commercial Unixes, Linux (and soon FreeBSD) implement ACLs to supplement basic permissions. They all work differently. None of your existing backup systems know how to deal with them properly. They are all difficult to manage. In short, you might be able to use ACLs on *nix, but it's going to be a bumpy ride. Actually, I think that there may be a POSIX standard for ACLs under Unix, but I don't know how well adhered to it is. -Dom P.S. Anybody fancy writing a GNOME/KDE file manager extension for dealing with ACLs? :-) -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl .. etc. etc. Bounce
"Rafiq Ismail (ADMIN)" wrote: > > Hmm.. They don't seem very reliable do they? I exceeded his quota with my > itsy CV attachment. Oh I don't know, with the job market like it is, yours was probably the 500th cv in the last hour :) -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual boot
Chris Benson wrote: > But surely this discussion is pointless since everyone logs in as > Administrator[*1] and leaves the permissions as they are, don't they. > Every NT box I've ever seen has worked like this. And apparently XP users > default to administrative rights?? Nix and NT share this trait. There are a number of common tasks that should be do-able as a user but you actually have to be root/admin to do them. Then people get into the habit of (for instance) always installing new software as root/admin rather than checking to see what permissions are _actually_ required. I think NT is worse than Nix in this regard, but there's not _that_ much in it IME. The sudo command can be helpful in these situations, and I'm not aware of anything in NT that operates like the sudo command (although I guess you could write one). However, in file sharing situations, Unix's (default?) permission system is utterly useless, and not nearly fine grained enough to cope with real requirements in large offices. I once had a Unix sysadmin guy tell me that if my requirements for access to files were more complex than the system could deliver, then "I was just being disorganised, I should think harder about who really needs access to this stuff". I felt like punching the guy. I've never looked into it but I imagine there are third part addons for some Unixes that giver better permissioning capability. Anyone know of any? -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Roleplaying
* Natalie Ford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:25:52PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > p.s. if this doesnt work out or indeed if there is a huge number of > > interested parties i may run a PBEM > > Any chance you could run a PBEM as well? I really like that idea. > :) > its probably just one, i don't have the time to do both well -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
[JOB] Senior Perl .. etc. etc. Bounce
Hmm.. They don't seem very reliable do they? I exceeded his quota with my itsy CV attachment. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:23:24 GMT From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Fri, 21 Dec 2001 14:23:22 GMT from joshua.dreamthought.com [212.135.138.243] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation) - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to mx09.hotmail.com.: >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <<< 552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation 554 5.0.0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Service unavailable
Re: [JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London (fwd)
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:47:21PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > >Saw this on perl jobs and thought people might be interested. Oh, and >Merry Christmas! This may well be genuine, but I've been pretty unimpressed with OSP before now, and Paul in particular (in fact I have no indication that OSP is anyone other than Paul) - lots of vague stuff like this job description, but getting very quiet when it came to specifics (like "where in London"). Just my experience, past performance is no guide to blah blah blah. Roger
[JOB] Senior Perl Programmer (part onsite), United Kingdom, London(fwd)
Saw this on perl jobs and thought people might be interested. Oh, and Merry Christmas! -- Forwarded message -- Online URL for this job: http://jobs.perl.org/job/180 To subscribe to this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted: December 20, 2001 Job title: Senior Perl Programmer Company name: Open Source People Internal ID: SS Location: United Kingdom, London Pay rate: £30-45K + benefits Travel: 0% Terms of employment: Salaried employee Length of employment: Permanent Hours: Full time Onsite: some Description: Experienced Perl Programmer urgently required by a leading Internet company with a very flat operational structure. Candidates must have atleast 4yrs of hands on Perl development experience, must have MOD Perl experience together with Linux, Apache, MYSQL and XML experience. You will be working in a relaxed environment with a casual dress policy with like minded professionals who also share your passion for Perl hacking on opensource platforms. Does this sound like you? If so then E-mail now. Required skills: Perl, mod_perl, Linux, Apache, MySQL and XML Contact information: Paul Pike Tel 0870 202 2020 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dual boot
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:58:05AM -, Ivor Williams wrote: > -Original Message- > From: Dave Thorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:34:17AM -, Ivor Williams wrote: > > > > This uses a 16 bit mask: (System:RWED,Owner:RWED,Group:RWED,World:RWED) > > > > RWED bits are Read, Write, Execute and Delete. But surely this discussion is pointless since everyone logs in as Administrator[*1] and leaves the permissions as they are, don't they. Every NT box I've ever seen has worked like this. And apparently XP users default to administrative rights?? *1 because they need to be able to *do* things other than play Solitaire! -- Chris Benson
RE: Dual boot
-Original Message- From: Dave Thorn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 December 2001 10:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dual boot On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:34:17AM -, Ivor Williams wrote: > > This uses a 16 bit mask: (System:RWED,Owner:RWED,Group:RWED,World:RWED) > > RWED bits are Read, Write, Execute and Delete. so if you have Write but not Delete you can truncate the file and get much the same effect? Correct. You can nobble a file completely, but not remove its directory entry. --- The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and solely for the intended addressee(s). Unauthorised reproduction, disclosure, modification, and/or distribution of this email may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of LIFFE (Holdings) Plc or any of its subsidiary companies. ---
Re: Dual boot
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 10:34:17AM -, Ivor Williams wrote: > > This uses a 16 bit mask: (System:RWED,Owner:RWED,Group:RWED,World:RWED) > > RWED bits are Read, Write, Execute and Delete. so if you have Write but not Delete you can truncate the file and get much the same effect? -- dave thorn | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual boot
NT inherited its file security strategy from Digital's VMS. This uses a 16 bit mask: (System:RWED,Owner:RWED,Group:RWED,World:RWED) RWED bits are Read, Write, Execute and Delete. As far as I know, NT uses the same scheme. Also, they have an equivalent of Access Control Lists, which allow a complete other layer of permissioning unrelated to the UID/GID of the owner. Individual people are granted 'rights', which work a bit like groups. Files can have access control lists, which provide different RWED permissions for holders of rights, compared with non-holders. Using ACLs slows down your file opens and directory scans significantly. So, unless you're paranoid or working with potential hackers, it's usually not worth bothering. Ivor. -Original Message- From: Dominic Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 December 2001 10:06 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dual boot [...] Mmmm, yes. Cacls. More sophisticated permissions does not necessarily mean "better". I have yet to see a decent explanation of NT permission bits and how they interact and functions with NT system calls (the 12 unix permission bits are difficult enough). --- The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and solely for the intended addressee(s). Unauthorised reproduction, disclosure, modification, and/or distribution of this email may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of LIFFE (Holdings) Plc or any of its subsidiary companies. ---
Re: Dual boot
Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 01:47:37AM +, robin szemeti wrote: > > Windows > > Virus > > "No effective file permisions system" > > Windows NT has a more sophisticated file ownership/permissions system > than *nix by a lng way. (Win 9x/ME suck of course.) Mmmm, yes. Cacls. More sophisticated permissions does not necessarily mean "better". I have yet to see a decent explanation of NT permission bits and how they interact and functions with NT system calls (the 12 unix permission bits are difficult enough). -Dom -- | Semantico: creators of major online resources | | URL: http://www.semantico.com/ | | Tel: +44 (1273) 72 | | Address: 33 Bond St., Brighton, Sussex, BN1 1RD, UK. |
Re: Roleplaying
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:25:52PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > p.s. if this doesnt work out or indeed if there is a huge number of > interested parties i may run a PBEM Any chance you could run a PBEM as well? I really like that idea. :) -- Natalie Ford .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yet Another Computer Solutions Company Limited ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
