Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> All PHB's are in need of training. 
> ===
> I get this acronym: 
> PHB   Psycho Hose Beast  
> ??

Better than these three:

Packet Handling Buffer  
PCI Host Bridge 
Per Hop Behavior

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Allegakoen, Justin Devanandan]

8<-- 
All PHB's are in need of training. 
===
I get this acronym: 
PHB Psycho Hose Beast  
??
8<-- 


It's Pointy Haired Boss from the comic strip Dilbert. I'm positively
sure that Scott Adams worked for Intel at some stage of his life . . .

Well anyway how do we make this thread more Perl like?

How about:

use strict;
use warnings;

$_ = 'Pointy Haired Boss';
tr/a-z //d;
print;

Just in

Disclaimer - I didn't mean what I said! Honest!

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[assistent]

At 10:20 AM 4/5/05 -0700, $Bill Luebkert wrote:

>>So you have the right attitude, but now you need training.  And
>>since your using Lotus Notes, your boss may need training too.   :) 


All PHB's are in need of training. 
===
I get this acronym: 
PHB Psycho Hose Beast  
??
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Alexander Apprich]

$Bill Luebkert wrote:
Chris Wagner wrote:

All PHB's are in need of training. ;)

Had to Google that one. ;)
http://www.acronymfinder.com is your friend :-)
Alex
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Chris Wagner wrote:

> All PHB's are in need of training. ;)

Had to Google that one. ;)

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 10:20 AM 4/5/05 -0700, $Bill Luebkert wrote:
>So you have the right attitude, but now you need training.  And
>since your using Lotus Notes, your boss may need training too.  :)

All PHB's are in need of training. ;)







--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Lloyd Sartor wrote:

> 
>> > 1) Remove all .sigs and other parts of the message that aren't pertinent
>> > to your reply.  (Don't be lazy and force it on the next guy.)
>>
>> > 2) Respond to each sentence/paragraph immediately below that item and
>> > keep the quoting intact (the >>> stuff on the left) so people know you
>> > said what.
>>
>> > 3) Post in plain text only and keep the width to around 70 to allow for
>> > quoting of responses and still stay under 80 (obviously a code snippet
>> > would go the full 80 since you're pasting it in).
>>
>> This should be taught in elementary school along with sex education
>> and nutrition.
> 
> They didn't have sex education when I was in elementary school. Nor did my
> father ever tell me about the birds and the bees. So I learned much about
> sex, like posting, from friends and observation. Sometimes, these were poor
> examples. The what, how, and why of many things were not learned until
> much later in life.
> 
> This thread has been very enlightening. I'm sure there are others like me
> that "top posted" simply because of ignorance, not malice or laziness.
> 
> Now I can't wait to respond in proper style! ;-)

Good for you - a convert.

But you haven't reached nirvana yet - you posted in HTML which is
breaking rule 3.  You also broke rule 2 by not keeping the quoting
intact (you removed the line that says who you were responding to).

You'll notice that the first line of this message that attributes
the first level of '>' to you is there (cause my email client put
it there as it added the > quoting to your email), but the
attributions for >> and >>> are missing cause you deleted it or
your crappy email client didn't put it there.

So you have the right attitude, but now you need training.  And
since your using Lotus Notes, your boss may need training too.  :)

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Lloyd Sartor]

> > 1) Remove all .sigs and other parts of the
message that aren't pertinent
> > to your reply.  (Don't be lazy and force it on the next
guy.)
> 
> > 2) Respond to each sentence/paragraph immediately below that
item and
> > keep the quoting intact (the >>> stuff on the left)
so people know you
> > said what.
> 
> > 3) Post in plain text only and keep the width to around 70 to
allow for
> > quoting of responses and still stay under 80 (obviously a code
snippet
> > would go the full 80 since you're pasting it in).
> 
> This should be taught in elementary school along with sex education
> and nutrition. 

They didn't have sex education when I was in elementary
school. Nor did my
father ever tell me about the birds and the bees.
So I learned much about
sex, like posting, from friends and observation. Sometimes,
these were poor
examples. The what, how, and why of many things were
not learned until 
much later in life.

This thread has been very enlightening. I'm sure there
are others like me
that "top posted" simply because of ignorance,
not malice or laziness.

Now I can't wait to respond in proper style! ;-)

Lloyd
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Sisyphus]

- Original Message - 
From: "Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'perl-win32-users'" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OT] Spam to list
> Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? 

The reply appears in context.

Cheers,
Rob
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Sisyphus]

The reply appears in context.

Cheers,
Rob
 
- Original Message - 
From: "Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'perl-win32-users'" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OT] Spam to list

> Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? 

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) wrote:

> Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? 

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as bottom posting.  It's
really interspersed replies (bottom posting would imply that all of your
reply text would go at the bottom and that's not correct either unless
of course there is only one point to reply to.

Interspersed replies along with pruning is the proper way to reply to a
message and was in the charter of most email lists at one time - including
this one.  The M$ generation of lazy posters with crappy email clients is
what caused all of this top-posting crap.

1) Remove all .sigs and other parts of the message that aren't pertinent
to your reply.  (Don't be lazy and force it on the next guy.)

2) Respond to each sentence/paragraph immediately below that item and
keep the quoting intact (the >>> stuff on the left) so people know you
said what.

3) Post in plain text only and keep the width to around 70 to allow for
quoting of responses and still stay under 80 (obviously a code snippet
would go the full 80 since you're pasting it in).

So in general (and not directed at Bill per se) :

Unless you're a totally lazy person or an idiot that can't grasp the
concept of how this makes a thread more readable, that's all you need
to do to conform to proper posting standards.  The longer the thread
gets, the more obvious it should be to you why this method is preferred.
I often stop responding to top-posted threads, so you may be getting
less help from people that are like me in that regard.

>   I view
> my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order received. I like top
> posting better because I don't have to scroll to the bottom to see the
> reply. 

You're just being lazy and possibly not using the right tool if it
forces you to be lazy.

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Lyle Kopnicky]

Chris Wagner wrote:
Ah Fido-net!  Yeah those were the days when "netiquette" evolved.  Because
back then we were all on dial up connections, slow ones, and it mattered if
u cut out irrelevant text or not.  Now people take bandwidth and drive space
for granted.  These damn whipper snappers... ;)
 

Yeah, I used to use Fidonet, too.  But I still think that even if we 
don't care about the bandwidth today, we should still care about the 
time it takes people to read something.

- Lyle
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 02:43 PM 4/4/05 -0500, Charles K. Clarkson wrote:
>Old people, like me, have participated in this particular
>thread for years. I remember discussing top posting on Fido-Net,
>long before the internet was popular. For the most part, younger
>emailers tend to like top posting while older mailers tend to
>like bottom posting. As they age, many newcomers become bottom
>posters.


Ah Fido-net!  Yeah those were the days when "netiquette" evolved.  Because
back then we were all on dial up connections, slow ones, and it mattered if
u cut out irrelevant text or not.  Now people take bandwidth and drive space
for granted.  These damn whipper snappers... ;)

(fellow "old-timer")






--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Gregory S. Williamson]

-Original Message-
From:   Charles K. Clarkson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Mon 4/4/2005 12:55 PM
To: 'perl-win32-users'
Cc: 
Subject:        RE: [OT] Spam to list

And for the top posters:

Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.
Sorry. That should be edited, not audited.




Charles K. Clarkson <> wrote:
: Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) <> wrote:
: 
: : Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top
: : posting?
: 
: First, let's define what Bottom Posting and Top Posting are.
: 
: Top Posting involves leaving the existing message whole
: and intact and posting your reply above that quoted
: message. The entire previous message is retained.
: 
: Bottom Posting involves editing the original message such
: that only relevant passages remain and then posting a
: reply below each relevant quote. I think many Top
: Posting advocates do not realize that Bottom Posting
: is not just upside down Top Posting.
: 
: Other Posting styles are a mixture or are completely bizarre.
: Many people falsely believe they are bottom posting by
: placing their reply below unedited massages.
: 
: 
: Email in a technical email list is very rarely formatted as a
: single question with a single reply. I might, for example, answer
: one long question with several answers (as in a code review where
: relevant parts of the code are quoted and then corrections appear
: below).
: 
: Top posting squashes all replies to the top of the reply
: message. It is up to the reader to decipher which part of the
: original text applies to which question or it is up to the replier
: to rewrite his message in a manner which does not force the reader
: to continuously scroll up and down to understand the answer.
: Essentially repeating or rewording the relevant sections.
: 
: Top posters tend to reply above the entire original post.
: There is no editing of that text. If my reply answers a two line
: section of a 50K message and I top post, my post will be larger
: than 50K (my answer plus the entire original message). If I bottom
: post, only the two lines needed to make sense of my answer are
: needed and the post is about 50K smaller in size. Source code, for
: example, rarely needs to be in the follow up post.
: 
: 
: : I view my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order
: : received.
: 
: Then it is convenient for you to go to the previous message
: should this poster have edited the original Madge too much.
: 
: 
: : I like top posting better because I don't have to scroll to
: : the bottom to see the reply.
: 
: I bottom posted this reply and you didn't have to scroll to
: start reading my reply. Bottom posting does not involve scrolling
: meaningless text to view a reply. It is only meaningful, edited
: text which remains.
: 
: Bottom posting does not just mean the reply is on the bottom.
: Like my reply here, it also means I will intersperse my answers
: under meaningful and/or audited passages. There is no reason to
: quote an entire message to answer only a part of it.
: 
: On most technical lists, replies from the most experienced
: are replies which need to be bottom posted. Interspersing the
: "conversation" with top posts makes the job of the volunteering
: "expert" more difficult (especially with particularly long
: answers). There is an incentive to bottom post and keep the
: experts happy.
: 
: Top posting code and quoting a long code passage can make
: the reply difficult to grasp. Think of a math test where you
: teacher pales all the corrections at the top of your test
: instead near the problem you got wrong. It might take some time
: to match the correction with the answer.
: 
: Old people, like me, have participated in this particular
: thread for years. I remember discussing top posting on Fido-Net,
: long before the internet was popular. For the most part, younger
: emailers tend to like top posting while older mailers tend to
: like bottom posting. As they age, many newcomers become bottom
: posters.
: 
: Top Posters are often considered rude by Bottom Posters
: because all bottom posting requires editing the original message.
: Sometimes it is obvious the Top Poster cannot be bothered with
: such trivial courtesies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish
: the Lazy Top Posters from other Top Posters.
: 
: 
: I also belong to several email lists which involve a great
: deal of debate. Bottom posting allows me to answer each point of
: my opponent and to conveniently tell who posted which passage. It
: is the top posted articles which most often ate problems with
: improper quoting. Invariably, about once a month, someone will top
: post "I think that's a dumb thing to say," leaving it up to
: everyone else to wonder about which passage was dumb.
: 
: 
: 
: HTH,
: 
: Charles

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 12:25 PM 4/4/05 -0700, jeff griffiths wrote:
>I like the idea of pre-pending a tag to the subject though, and we do
>this a lot with other lists ( Komodo-discuss being the one that comes to
>mind ). Are there any strong objections to this?


I think that's a bad idea.  I've been on other lists like that and the
effect is that less of the actual subject is visible in the inbox because
it's displaced by the tag.  I've only got 44 chars as it is.





--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list -- correction

[Charles K. Clarkson]

Charles K. Clarkson <> wrote:
: 
: Then it is convenient for you to go to the previous message
: should this poster have edited the original Madge too much.

Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.


: Bottom posting does not just mean the reply is on the bottom.
: Like my reply here, it also means I will intersperse my answers
: under meaningful and/or audited passages.

Sorry. That should be edited, not audited.



Charles K. Clarkson
-- 
Mobile Homes Specialist
254 968-8328

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Charles K. Clarkson]

And for the top posters:

Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.
Sorry. That should be edited, not audited.




Charles K. Clarkson <> wrote:
: Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) <> wrote:
: 
: : Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top
: : posting?
: 
: First, let's define what Bottom Posting and Top Posting are.
: 
: Top Posting involves leaving the existing message whole
: and intact and posting your reply above that quoted
: message. The entire previous message is retained.
: 
: Bottom Posting involves editing the original message such
: that only relevant passages remain and then posting a
: reply below each relevant quote. I think many Top
: Posting advocates do not realize that Bottom Posting
: is not just upside down Top Posting.
: 
: Other Posting styles are a mixture or are completely bizarre.
: Many people falsely believe they are bottom posting by
: placing their reply below unedited massages.
: 
: 
: Email in a technical email list is very rarely formatted as a
: single question with a single reply. I might, for example, answer
: one long question with several answers (as in a code review where
: relevant parts of the code are quoted and then corrections appear
: below).
: 
: Top posting squashes all replies to the top of the reply
: message. It is up to the reader to decipher which part of the
: original text applies to which question or it is up to the replier
: to rewrite his message in a manner which does not force the reader
: to continuously scroll up and down to understand the answer.
: Essentially repeating or rewording the relevant sections.
: 
: Top posters tend to reply above the entire original post.
: There is no editing of that text. If my reply answers a two line
: section of a 50K message and I top post, my post will be larger
: than 50K (my answer plus the entire original message). If I bottom
: post, only the two lines needed to make sense of my answer are
: needed and the post is about 50K smaller in size. Source code, for
: example, rarely needs to be in the follow up post.
: 
: 
: : I view my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order
: : received.
: 
: Then it is convenient for you to go to the previous message
: should this poster have edited the original Madge too much.
: 
: 
: : I like top posting better because I don't have to scroll to
: : the bottom to see the reply.
: 
: I bottom posted this reply and you didn't have to scroll to
: start reading my reply. Bottom posting does not involve scrolling
: meaningless text to view a reply. It is only meaningful, edited
: text which remains.
: 
: Bottom posting does not just mean the reply is on the bottom.
: Like my reply here, it also means I will intersperse my answers
: under meaningful and/or audited passages. There is no reason to
: quote an entire message to answer only a part of it.
: 
: On most technical lists, replies from the most experienced
: are replies which need to be bottom posted. Interspersing the
: "conversation" with top posts makes the job of the volunteering
: "expert" more difficult (especially with particularly long
: answers). There is an incentive to bottom post and keep the
: experts happy.
: 
: Top posting code and quoting a long code passage can make
: the reply difficult to grasp. Think of a math test where you
: teacher pales all the corrections at the top of your test
: instead near the problem you got wrong. It might take some time
: to match the correction with the answer.
: 
: Old people, like me, have participated in this particular
: thread for years. I remember discussing top posting on Fido-Net,
: long before the internet was popular. For the most part, younger
: emailers tend to like top posting while older mailers tend to
: like bottom posting. As they age, many newcomers become bottom
: posters.
: 
: Top Posters are often considered rude by Bottom Posters
: because all bottom posting requires editing the original message.
: Sometimes it is obvious the Top Poster cannot be bothered with
: such trivial courtesies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish
: the Lazy Top Posters from other Top Posters.
: 
: 
: I also belong to several email lists which involve a great
: deal of debate. Bottom posting allows me to answer each point of
: my opponent and to conveniently tell who posted which passage. It
: is the top posted articles which most often ate problems with
: improper quoting. Invariably, about once a month, someone will top
: post "I think that's a dumb thing to say," leaving it up to
: everyone else to wonder about which passage was dumb.
: 
: 
: 
: HTH,
: 
: Charles K. Clarkson

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Charles K. Clarkson]

Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) <> wrote:

: Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top
: posting?

First, let's define what Bottom Posting and Top Posting are.

Top Posting involves leaving the existing message whole
and intact and posting your reply above that quoted
message. The entire previous message is retained.

Bottom Posting involves editing the original message such
that only relevant passages remain and then posting a
reply below each relevant quote. I think many Top
Posting advocates do not realize that Bottom Posting
is not just upside down Top Posting.

Other Posting styles are a mixture or are completely bizarre.
Many people falsely believe they are bottom posting by
placing their reply below unedited massages.


Email in a technical email list is very rarely formatted as a
single question with a single reply. I might, for example, answer
one long question with several answers (as in a code review where
relevant parts of the code are quoted and then corrections appear
below).

Top posting squashes all replies to the top of the reply
message. It is up to the reader to decipher which part of the
original text applies to which question or it is up to the replier
to rewrite his message in a manner which does not force the reader
to continuously scroll up and down to understand the answer.
Essentially repeating or rewording the relevant sections.

Top posters tend to reply above the entire original post.
There is no editing of that text. If my reply answers a two line
section of a 50K message and I top post, my post will be larger
than 50K (my answer plus the entire original message). If I bottom
post, only the two lines needed to make sense of my answer are
needed and the post is about 50K smaller in size. Source code, for
example, rarely needs to be in the follow up post.


: I view my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order
: received.

Then it is convenient for you to go to the previous message
should this poster have edited the original Madge too much.


: I like top posting better because I don't have to scroll to
: the bottom to see the reply.

I bottom posted this reply and you didn't have to scroll to
start reading my reply. Bottom posting does not involve scrolling
meaningless text to view a reply. It is only meaningful, edited
text which remains.

Bottom posting does not just mean the reply is on the bottom.
Like my reply here, it also means I will intersperse my answers
under meaningful and/or audited passages. There is no reason to
quote an entire message to answer only a part of it.

On most technical lists, replies from the most experienced
are replies which need to be bottom posted. Interspersing the
"conversation" with top posts makes the job of the volunteering
"expert" more difficult (especially with particularly long
answers). There is an incentive to bottom post and keep the
experts happy.

Top posting code and quoting a long code passage can make
the reply difficult to grasp. Think of a math test where you
teacher pales all the corrections at the top of your test
instead near the problem you got wrong. It might take some time
to match the correction with the answer.

Old people, like me, have participated in this particular
thread for years. I remember discussing top posting on Fido-Net,
long before the internet was popular. For the most part, younger
emailers tend to like top posting while older mailers tend to
like bottom posting. As they age, many newcomers become bottom
posters.

Top Posters are often considered rude by Bottom Posters
because all bottom posting requires editing the original message.
Sometimes it is obvious the Top Poster cannot be bothered with
such trivial courtesies. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish
the Lazy Top Posters from other Top Posters.


I also belong to several email lists which involve a great
deal of debate. Bottom posting allows me to answer each point of
my opponent and to conveniently tell who posted which passage. It
is the top posted articles which most often ate problems with
improper quoting. Invariably, about once a month, someone will top
post "I think that's a dumb thing to say," leaving it up to
everyone else to wonder about which passage was dumb.



HTH,

Charles K. Clarkson
-- 
Mobile Homes Specialist
254 968-8328













___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[jeff griffiths]

Chris Wagner wrote:
Neither is "better" as far as I'm concerned.  If I'm interleaving my
reply with the old message I go on the bottom.  If it's just adding
info/comments I put it on top with just a few lines quoted for
context.  If a direct reply to the quoted text, then on the bottom.
I think this issue falls squarely in with the other issue of reply-to
headers. The *convention* of this list generally is to bottom-post, so
the polite thing to do is that. *Everything* dev-related at work is
bottom-posted, so I'm quite used to it.
I also feel strongly that making any changes at this point will only
cause wide-spread confusion for list users, regardless of the merits of
that change. So despite my own preferences, I won't be setting the
reply-to to the list email address anytime soon.
I like the idea of pre-pending a tag to the subject though, and we do
this a lot with other lists ( Komodo-discuss being the one that comes to
mind ). Are there any strong objections to this?
cheers, JeffG
ps regarding Lotus Notes, this is used internally by the parent company, 
and in my version at least ( 6.5 ) there is an option to do 
'internet-style' replies and forwards - these do a reasonably tolerable 
job of quoting things properly.
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

Neither is "better" as far as I'm concerned.  If I'm interleaving my reply
with the old message I go on the bottom.  If it's just adding info/comments
I put it on top with just a few lines quoted for context.  If a direct reply
to the quoted text, then on the bottom.





--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Brian Steele [SPICEISLE.COM]]

$Bill Luebkert wrote:
I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette.   You
top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
those big header boxes you added.
Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? I 
view
my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order received. I like 
top
posting better because I don't have to scroll to the bottom to see the
reply.

I used to support bottom posting at one time, because it made it easier to 
follow the flow of the conversation  - most people tend to read from the top 
of the page down to the bottom, not the reverse :-).

These days however, I simply follow the pattern laid down by previous 
messages in the thread, whether it be top-posting or bottom-posting. Once 
the pattern is continued, the legibility of the thread is maintained.

Regards,
Brian Steele
www.spiceisle.com/brian
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech)]

$Bill Luebkert wrote:

> I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette.   You
> top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
> those big header boxes you added.
>

Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? I view
my email with a preview box sorted by subject and order received. I like top
posting better because I don't have to scroll to the bottom to see the
reply. 

Thanks
Bill Conrad
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Charles K. Clarkson]

Gerhard Petrowitsch <> wrote:
: 
: I'm very sorry, but I have to use Lotus Notes here for my mail,
: which our Corporate IT doesn't seem to be able to configure
: to simply get '>' quoted mail reply to work. So, sorry for my
: posting style. I'd love to have it the way you want it...
: 

You, or some other Lotus user, has mentioned this before.
If I understand you correctly, the quoted passage is read-only
and cannot be edited? That sounds like mighty strange behavior
for a product which is in its sixth version. Will your Sys Admin
allow you to use Notes Connector?


Charles K. Clarkson
-- 
Mobile Homes Specialist
254 968-8328

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Gerhard Petrowitsch]

Hi Bill,

I'm very sorry, but I have to use Lotus Notes here for my mail,
which our Corporate IT doesn't seem to be able to configure
to simply get '>' quoted mail reply to work. So, sorry for my
posting style. I'd love to have it the way you want it...

Regarding the OOO replies - I tried it out, with the 4 I got, when
I posted to the list this morning. I didn't get additional OOO replies.
This is because normal OOO replyers only reply once to each sender.

Regards,
Gerhard



|-+->
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |"$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |
| | |
| |Sent by: |
| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |.com |
| | |
| |2005-04-04 10:09 AM  |
|-+->
  
>---|
  | 
  |
  |   To:   "'perl-win32-users'" 
 
 |
  |   cc:   (bcc: Gerhard Petrowitsch/STN/SC/PHILIPS)   
          |
  |   Subject:Re: [OT] Spam to list 
  |
  | 
  |
  |   Classification:   
  |
  | 
  |
  | 
  |
  
>---|




Gerhard Petrowitsch wrote:

> I completely support $Bill's suggestion.
>
> But we could also try to attack the problem at it's root,
> i.e. the lazy oof-replyers. (I say 'lazy' because it must
> be possible to configure an oof reply to whom it responds
> or better, to whom it doesn't).
>
> If we spam them back with a
> 'thank you - a mailing list doesn't care that you're oof!'
> they might the next time be more careful in setting up
> their oof-reply.

I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette.   You
top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
those big header boxes you added.

As far as sending a nasty email back to the OOO'r, we'll just get
another OOO message back - so that's a waste of time unless we
set the reply-to to /dev/nul or some such (maybe we can set the
reply-to to the posters email address and see if we can put him
in a loop ;).

PS: Not sure why I used OOF instead of OOO - I think OOO is more
correct.

--
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic
http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Gerhard Petrowitsch wrote:

> I completely support $Bill's suggestion.
> 
> But we could also try to attack the problem at it's root,
> i.e. the lazy oof-replyers. (I say 'lazy' because it must
> be possible to configure an oof reply to whom it responds
> or better, to whom it doesn't).
> 
> If we spam them back with a
> 'thank you - a mailing list doesn't care that you're oof!'
> they might the next time be more careful in setting up
> their oof-reply.

I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette.   You
top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
those big header boxes you added.

As far as sending a nasty email back to the OOO'r, we'll just get
another OOO message back - so that's a waste of time unless we
set the reply-to to /dev/nul or some such (maybe we can set the
reply-to to the posters email address and see if we can put him
in a loop ;).

PS: Not sure why I used OOF instead of OOO - I think OOO is more
correct.

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Alan Peck]

Hi,

Not sure if this has been mentioned, just have not the time to go through all 
the [OT] posts.

Could something like [perl-win32] be prepended to the Subject title if it does 
not exist in the subject title. It would help a great deal in sorting emails 
into various folders. At the moment I have some replies ending up in the 
general folder while most are ending up in the Perl-Win32 folder using the mail 
list email address.

Good to hear that the SPAM issue is being tackled.

Thanx
Alun

>>> Gerhard Petrowitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/04/05 7:33 AM >>>
I completely support $Bill's suggestion.

But we could also try to attack the problem at it's root,
i.e. the lazy oof-replyers. (I say 'lazy' because it must
be possible to configure an oof reply to whom it responds
or better, to whom it doesn't).

If we spam them back with a
'thank you - a mailing list doesn't care that you're oof!'
they might the next time be more careful in setting up
their oof-reply.

Regards,
Gerhard



|-+->
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |"$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |
| | |
| |Sent by: |
| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |.com |
| | |
| |2005-04-02 03:24 PM  |
|-+->
  
>---|
  | 
  |
  |   To:   "'perl-win32-users'" 
 
 |
  |   cc:   (bcc: Gerhard Petrowitsch/STN/SC/PHILIPS)   
  |
  |   Subject:Re: [OT] Spam to list 
  |
  | 
  |
  |   Classification:   
  |
  | 
  |
  | 
  |
  
>---|




Paul Rogers wrote:

> $Bill:  I don't think Chris was suggesting removing the poster's email
> altogether.  That would surely be counter-productive.

Just as long as there is a concise definition of what changes are to be
made so you can anticipate any impact.  Then maybe a trial run on an
experimental newsgroup with half a dozen of our list members just in
case and to shake out any bugs.

My only requirements are that both the list and the poster be included
somewhere in the From, CC, To and/or Reply-To headers.


--
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic
http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

--
Tshwane University of Technology
--
This email is sent and received in terms of the 
Electronic Communications Policy of Tshwane University of Technology.
In line with this policy, this email is private, priviledged and
confidential. The full text of the Electronic Mail Disclaimer
can be seen on the TUT web site at 
http://www.tut.ac.za/goto/emaildisclaimer
or obtained by phoning (012) 318-5911
<<<>>>

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Gerhard Petrowitsch]

I completely support $Bill's suggestion.

But we could also try to attack the problem at it's root,
i.e. the lazy oof-replyers. (I say 'lazy' because it must
be possible to configure an oof reply to whom it responds
or better, to whom it doesn't).

If we spam them back with a
'thank you - a mailing list doesn't care that you're oof!'
they might the next time be more careful in setting up
their oof-reply.

Regards,
Gerhard



|-+->
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |"$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  |
| | |
| |Sent by: |
| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|
| |.com |
| | |
| |2005-04-02 03:24 PM  |
|-+->
  
>---|
  | 
  |
  |   To:   "'perl-win32-users'" 
 
 |
  |   cc:   (bcc: Gerhard Petrowitsch/STN/SC/PHILIPS)           
  |
  |   Subject:Re: [OT] Spam to list 
  |
  | 
  |
  |   Classification:   
  |
  | 
  |
  | 
  |
  
>---|




Paul Rogers wrote:

> $Bill:  I don't think Chris was suggesting removing the poster's email
> altogether.  That would surely be counter-productive.

Just as long as there is a concise definition of what changes are to be
made so you can anticipate any impact.  Then maybe a trial run on an
experimental newsgroup with half a dozen of our list members just in
case and to shake out any bugs.

My only requirements are that both the list and the poster be included
somewhere in the From, CC, To and/or Reply-To headers.


--
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic
http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Paul Rogers wrote:

> $Bill:  I don't think Chris was suggesting removing the poster's email 
> altogether.  That would surely be counter-productive.

Just as long as there is a concise definition of what changes are to be
made so you can anticipate any impact.  Then maybe a trial run on an
experimental newsgroup with half a dozen of our list members just in
case and to shake out any bugs.

My only requirements are that both the list and the poster be included
somewhere in the From, CC, To and/or Reply-To headers.


-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Paul Rogers]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lyle Kopnicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


I'm all for putting the sender's address in the From header and the list 
address in the Reply-To header.  That's how it works on most every list 
I'm on, and it works great.
Agreed.  And I think this is the crux of the problem.  This is the 
_expected_ behaviour of a list.  People get accustomed to how it works, so 
when a list behaves in a non-standard manner, issues begin to arise.  There 
is little sense in fighting people's engrained expectations of list 
behaviour, regardless of technical merits.  Additionally, the technical 
merits mentioned are all based on a small percentage of counter cases.  This 
rarely makes for good policy.

$Bill:  I don't think Chris was suggesting removing the poster's email 
altogether.  That would surely be counter-productive.

paul ---
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 03:45 PM 4/1/05 -0800, $Bill Luebkert wrote:
>That would involve a big hash that converts everyone's pseudoname with the
>real thing.  Could be a hassle.  Switching the To and CC seems easier and
>the reply-to header might be even easier (provided it works - we'd have to
>test some of the OOFs and see who the reply to).

A hash?  No u just do it on on the fly with a regex.  
$sender = "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"; # or
$sender = "(Bob) [EMAIL PROTECTED]";
$sender =~ s/[^ <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >]+/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/;

Also simply switching the To: fields so that it's always To:  and
anybody else on CC: like u say is feasible.






--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Lyle Kopnicky]

I'm all for putting the sender's address in the From header and the list 
address in the Reply-To header.  That's how it works on most every list 
I'm on, and it works great.

Regards,
Lyle Kopnicky
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Chris Wagner wrote:

> At 12:02 PM 4/1/05 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
> 
The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address
with that of the list but keep the sender's name. Like "Bob
>>
>>Nope, that doesn't fly.  It makes it very hard to reply to the original
>>sender because their address is lost now.
> 
> 
> Not fly?  I would consider making it difficult to reply directly to the
> sender and not the list a good thing.  We want traffic to stay on-list.
> Anybody who wants to contact the poster off-list can get their address from
> the headers.  I hate having to cut and paste everytime I reply to put the
> list in the To: field and get rid of the other addresses.  Having this setup
> will make it easier to deal with bounces, auto responders and other chaffe
> that junks up the list.

There are times when the whole list is counter intuitive.  Like I may
want to send a large code snippet that I don't wish to share with
the entire list or an exe, so I'm 100% against removing the posters
email addr entirely.

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

jeff griffiths wrote:

> Chris Wagner wrote:
> 
>>At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
>>>like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
>>>lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
>>>/ philosophical / religious reasons.
>>
>>
>>The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address with
>>that of the list but keep the sender's name.  Like "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
>>would get rewritten into "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".  This way we
>>know who posted without having to open the email and replying is a lot
>>easier.  The poster's real email address can put into an extra header.  I
>>think this'll make everything just easier.
> 
> 
> Hrm, interesting idea. I'll see if I can get some traction with this 
> internally. Before we would change anything though we'd have to have 
> some really long meeting with a big box of quality Canadian donuts, and 
> of course notify everyone involved.

That would involve a big hash that converts everyone's pseudoname with the
real thing.  Could be a hassle.  Switching the To and CC seems easier and
the reply-to header might be even easier (provided it works - we'd have to
test some of the OOFs and see who the reply to).

> Any other ideas?
> 
> *disclaimer* I'm just the moderator for this specific list, I am in no 
> way capable of making changes myself. =)


-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Sisyphus]

- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "perl-win32-users" 
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Spam to list


> It could be that they got spammed sometime by somebody on ur network and
now
> they flag everything coming from +/- 3 miles of u.
>

I think that's probably what happened - and the culprit was probably me.

I've just put a Windows box back onto the internet through a permanent
connection. Within a day or so of doing that my IP address got blacklisted
by SpamCop - presumably because of a Nimda infection which I subsequently
found and removed.

At least with SpamCop you know exactly what's going on, and if you fix the
problem you automatically get removed from the blacklist within a few hours.
The problem here looks to be that the Symantec program delivers a life
sentence. And you can't notify the admin that you have fixed the problem (or
even find out precisely what the original problem was/is) because it's
blocking all your emails sent to that address.

Anyway, Tim Rothbeg did the right thing and forwarded the email I sent to
the relevant person, who responded straight away - and I expect we'll get
the problem sorted out soon.

Feel free to resume shopping at Selkirk :-)

Cheers,
Rob

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 12:02 PM 4/1/05 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
>>> The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address
>>> with that of the list but keep the sender's name. Like "Bob
>Nope, that doesn't fly.  It makes it very hard to reply to the original
>sender because their address is lost now.

Not fly?  I would consider making it difficult to reply directly to the
sender and not the list a good thing.  We want traffic to stay on-list.
Anybody who wants to contact the poster off-list can get their address from
the headers.  I hate having to cut and paste everytime I reply to put the
list in the To: field and get rid of the other addresses.  Having this setup
will make it easier to deal with bounces, auto responders and other chaffe
that junks up the list.





--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Jan Dubois]

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005, jeff griffiths wrote:
> Chris Wagner wrote:
>> At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
>>
>>> The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails
>>> look like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none
>>> of our lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection
>>> of technical / philosophical / religious reasons.

Check here for both sides of the debate:

  http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html

>> The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address
>> with that of the list but keep the sender's name. Like "Bob
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" would get rewritten into "Bob
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>". This way we know who posted without
>> having to open the email and replying is a lot easier. The poster's
>> real email address can put into an extra header. I think this'll make
>> everything just easier.

Nope, that doesn't fly.  It makes it very hard to reply to the original
sender because their address is lost now.

> Hrm, interesting idea. I'll see if I can get some traction with this
> internally. Before we would change anything though we'd have to have
> some really long meeting with a big box of quality Canadian donuts,
> and of course notify everyone involved.
>
> Any other ideas?

Donuts are always a good idea, but on Fridays you should bring beer if
you want to increase the weight of your arguments.

> *disclaimer* I'm just the moderator for this specific list, I am in no
> way capable of making changes myself. =)

I'm afraid changes that can't be made by just diddling Mailman configuration
parameters but need actual changes to the code have a low probability of
happening.  As moderator you should be able to change all the list settings
that are exposed through the web interface.

Cheers,
-Jan


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[jeff griffiths]

Chris Wagner wrote:
At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
/ philosophical / religious reasons.

The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address with
that of the list but keep the sender's name.  Like "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
would get rewritten into "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".  This way we
know who posted without having to open the email and replying is a lot
easier.  The poster's real email address can put into an extra header.  I
think this'll make everything just easier.
Hrm, interesting idea. I'll see if I can get some traction with this 
internally. Before we would change anything though we'd have to have 
some really long meeting with a big box of quality Canadian donuts, and 
of course notify everyone involved.

Any other ideas?
*disclaimer* I'm just the moderator for this specific list, I am in no 
way capable of making changes myself. =)

JeffG



--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"
0100
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
>The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
>like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
>lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
>/ philosophical / religious reasons.

The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address with
that of the list but keep the sender's name.  Like "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
would get rewritten into "Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>".  This way we
know who posted without having to open the email and replying is a lot
easier.  The poster's real email address can put into an extra header.  I
think this'll make everything just easier.







--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

jeff griffiths wrote:

> I agree the OOF replies are annoying, but it is something we can't
> control within the limitations of the current mailing list settings. We
> can trap OOF stuff from users sent to the LIST, but the OOF also replies
> to the poster.
> 
> The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
> like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
> lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
> / philosophical / religious reasons.
> 
> What are your preferences regarding this? perl-win32-users is by far our
> busiest list, so what you people want is important to us.

I don't have a problem changing the Reply-To: to the list.  I usually
do a Reply-all which replies to the poster and the list.  Sometimes
I then remove the poster from the reply or sometimes I remove the list
from the reply, but usually I leave both (reason being in case the list
is slow, the poster gets a direct reply immediately).  So I'm used to
checking the To/Cc already and if it'll stop some of the spam to
catch it early I'm for it - either swap the To and Cc or make the list
the Reply-To or whatever works best for everyone.

> This message sent in part because I want to see if I can get this
> mystery bounce Rob is talking about =)



-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[jeff griffiths]

$Bill Luebkert wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Hi, Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:

Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
 prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email 
recipient.
...
Obviously they don't like Aussies. If that's not it, must be that M$ 
crap you're using to post with. If that's not it, I recommend bumping
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Win32 list. If that doesn't help, 
quit posting to the list. If that doesn't get it, email your posts to
 me and I'll forward them to the list. If that doesn't work, pray - 
but I'm sure that won't help.

PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF
 replies.
I agree the OOF replies are annoying, but it is something we can't
control within the limitations of the current mailing list settings. We
can trap OOF stuff from users sent to the LIST, but the OOF also replies
to the poster.
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
/ philosophical / religious reasons.
What are your preferences regarding this? perl-win32-users is by far our
busiest list, so what you people want is important to us.
This message sent in part because I want to see if I can get this
mystery bounce Rob is talking about =)
cheers, JeffG

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Chris Wagner]

It could be that they got spammed sometime by somebody on ur network and now
they flag everything coming from +/- 3 miles of u.





--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---=< WTC 911 >=--
"...ne cede males"

0100

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Sisyphus]

- Original Message - 
From: "$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF
replies.
>

The message I sent with Net::SMTP to this list still triggered the spam
notification from [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I went to the selkirkinc website and dug up an address to a
[EMAIL PROTECTED], posted to that address, and subsequently
received the usual spam notification email from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - so
at least that proved that it's originating from selkirkinc.com.
Eventually I figured I could send mail from another address that I have and
not trigger any spam alarms - so I sent [EMAIL PROTECTED] an email from
that address, only to receive an email from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
telling me that delivery to [EMAIL PROTECTED] had failed. It did not
however produce a spam notification so I realised I was onto something that
might work. Using my alternative email address, I again sent an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , knowing that it would get through ... and it
did!! It elicited a delightful little OOF reply containing the information
that Tim is "Traveling to China & will check email.   Will return on
04APRIL2005"

It's gotta be an April Fool's joke . and one of the best that I've ever
encountered.

Please - the next time you wanna buy a grill, diffuser, chimney or gas vent,
don't buy it from Selkirk.

Cheers,
Rob

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Lloyd Sartor wrote:

> Ye of little faith...even PERL blesses those of the proper class...

Are you a pommy too ?  You're a lazy HTML top-poster - that much we're sure of. 
 ;)

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -
> 
> To: Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Lloyd Sartor]

Ye of little faith...even PERL blesses those of the proper class...[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -To: Sisyphus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>From: "$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 03/31/2005 08:15PMcc: perl-win32-users Subject: Re: [OT] Spam to listSisyphus wrote:> Hi,> Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:> > Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing> prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email recipient.> > The body of the email reads something like:> > Subject of the message: Re: More on Re: Windows DLL - Perl Interface> Recipient of the message: "Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com"> > > Does anybody else receive these gems ? Anyone know what's (likely to be)> going on ? It's only mail to this list that generates the spam notification.> I don't know if I will receive it when I *start* a thread on this list > but I'm about to find out.Obviously they don't like Aussies.If that's not it, must be that M$ crap you're using to post with.If that's not it, I recommend bumping [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Win32 list.If that doesn't help, quit posting to the list.If that doesn't get it, email your posts to me and I'll forward them to the list.If that doesn't work, pray - but I'm sure that won't help.PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF replies.--   ,-/-  __      _  _         $Bill Luebkert    Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (_/   /  )    // //       DBE Collectibles    Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  / ) /--<  o // //      Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)___Perl-Win32-Users mailing listPerl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.comTo unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Ted Schuerzinger]

$Bill Luebkert graced perl with these words of wisdom:

> PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF
> replies. 

Every time I get those I think about actually responding to the people 
mentioned in them as contacts.  Perhaps doing that might get people to 
configure list subscriptions better.  :-)

-- 
Ted 
TV Announcer: It's 11:00.  Do you know where your children are?
Homer: I told you last night, *no*!

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Allegakoen, Justin Devanandan]

8<- 
Yep - I still get that notification.

> 
> Obviously they don't like Aussies.

Hmmm ... I didn't think there were any Kiwis on this list.
8<-

Nope it only targets the $10 poms. $15 poms are left out because they
paid extra (justified by the extra distance the boats need to travel in
order to reach NZ from England).

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[sisyphus]

- Original Message - 
From: "$Bill Luebkert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sisyphus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "perl-win32-users" 
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Spam to list


> Sisyphus wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:
> > 
> > Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
> > prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email recipient.
> > 
> > The body of the email reads something like:
> > 
> > Subject of the message: Re: More on Re: Windows DLL - Perl Interface
> > Recipient of the message: "Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com"
> > 
> > 
> > Does anybody else receive these gems ? Anyone know what's (likely to be)
> > going on ? It's only mail to this list that generates the spam notification.
> > I don't know if I will receive it when I *start* a thread on this list 
> > but I'm about to find out.

Yep - I still get that notification.

> 
> Obviously they don't like Aussies.

Hmmm ... I didn't think there were any Kiwis on this list.

> If that's not it, must be that M$ crap you're using to post with.

Quite possibly - this post is being sent using Net::SMTP. Hopefully it won't 
include the offending headers.

> If that's not it, I recommend bumping [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Win32 list.

I'll second that.

> If that doesn't help, quit posting to the list.

Aaah  you're too kind. Some would say "Even if it *does* help, quit posting 
to the list anyway."

> If that doesn't get it, email your posts to me and I'll forward them to the 
> list.

Now *that* would be fun (for both of us :-)

> If that doesn't work, pray - but I'm sure that won't help.

Never helped before - but then I've never tried it before...

Cheers,
Rob


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[Leigh Sharpe]

> 
> Obviously they don't like Aussies.
> 


That's not it.

___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

Re: [OT] Spam to list

[$Bill Luebkert]

Sisyphus wrote:
> Hi,
> Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:
> 
> Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
> prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email recipient.
> 
> The body of the email reads something like:
> 
> Subject of the message: Re: More on Re: Windows DLL - Perl Interface
> Recipient of the message: "Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com"
> 
> 
> Does anybody else receive these gems ? Anyone know what's (likely to be)
> going on ? It's only mail to this list that generates the spam notification.
> I don't know if I will receive it when I *start* a thread on this list 
> but I'm about to find out.

Obviously they don't like Aussies.
If that's not it, must be that M$ crap you're using to post with.
If that's not it, I recommend bumping [EMAIL PROTECTED] from the Win32 list.
If that doesn't help, quit posting to the list.
If that doesn't get it, email your posts to me and I'll forward them to the 
list.
If that doesn't work, pray - but I'm sure that won't help.

PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF replies.

-- 
  ,-/-  __  _  _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (_/   /  )// //   DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  / ) /--<  o // //  Castle of Medieval Myth & Magic http://www.todbe.com/
-/-' /___/_<_http://dbecoll.tripod.com/ (My Perl/Lakers stuff)
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

RE: [OT] Spam to list

[Gregory S. Williamson]

Not I ...
G

-Original Message-
From:   Sisyphus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:   Thu 3/31/2005 5:50 PM
To: perl-win32-users
Cc: 
Subject:[OT] Spam to list
Hi,
Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:

Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email recipient.

The body of the email reads something like:

Subject of the message: Re: More on Re: Windows DLL - Perl Interface
Recipient of the message: "Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com"


Does anybody else receive these gems ? Anyone know what's (likely to be)
going on ? It's only mail to this list that generates the spam notification.
I don't know if I will receive it when I *start* a thread on this list 
but I'm about to find out.

Cheers,
Rob


___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs

!DSPAM:424caa47197031367817404!



___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs