On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
> > I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
> > I have sent more than 10 e-mails with no response.
> > I have used the cancel link but it only sends me to a link where I
Hi Gene an *,
Am 2006-04-14 03:45:06, schrieb Gene Heskett:
> All you protestors might want to be aware that as I see your pgp signed
> messages here, without your keys, the added stuff about unsubbing is
> not visible here even if I view the pgp signature. So I have to assume
> that when the
--
From: Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday 16 April 2006 01:17, Lynn Kilroy wrote:
> It seems to me, that if your client removes everything below
>
> --
>
> then that is a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
That's not a bug, but a feature one should be aware of.
Ahh, but I wasn'
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:48:39PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ken Irving wrote:
> > I don't think that should be necessary. Procmail ought to be able be
> > coerced to operate one way if the header indicates a multipart message
> > (package the footer in a mime section) and another if the body is
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:50:39AM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
> Obviously one has to way the disadvantage of added bloat (adding
> signatures this way is going to make for slightly bigger mails) vs.
> having a defense ("there's the signature") against people who just
> can't figure out how to unsub
Ken Irving wrote:
> I don't think that should be necessary. Procmail ought to be able be
> coerced to operate one way if the header indicates a multipart message
> (package the footer in a mime section) and another if the body is rfc822
> (append the footer as done now).
Am I the only one wh
On Apr 19, 2006, at 2:51 PM, David E. Fox wrote:
[...snip...]
But *if* doing that makes the signature footer always visible, why
not?
Obviously one has to way the disadvantage of added bloat (adding
signatures this way is going to make for slightly bigger mails) vs.
having a defense ("there'
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:51:01AM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:13:48 -0800
> Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > As discussed elsewhere in this (sorry, Ms. Oncay) thread, the problem is
> > due to the footer not being packaged in a multipart section. If you can
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:01:21 -0800
Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, that's not the reason it doesn't show up. The reason is that the
> debian footer is appended as plain text to all messages sent from the
Well put. I did notice the same behavior in messages sent both text and
as HTML
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 15:13:48 -0800
Ken Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As discussed elsewhere in this (sorry, Ms. Oncay) thread, the problem is
> due to the footer not being packaged in a multipart section. If you can
And raises the possibility of the footer (i.e., the unsubscribe
message)
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:21:30AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:38:31AM -0400, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:04:34PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> > > that mo
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 01:38:31AM -0400, Steve C. Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:04:34PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> > that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed message
> > may or may
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 09:58, Stephen wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:34:59AM -0400 or thereabouts, Rich Johnson
wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> >On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:53:49PM -0500 or thereabouts, Matthew R.
>> >
>> >Dempsky wrote:
>> >>On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:34:59AM -0400 or thereabouts, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:53:49PM -0500 or thereabouts, Matthew R.
> >Dempsky wrote:
> >>On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:13:04PM -0400, Stephen wrote:
> >>>Interesting.
On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:16 AM, Stephen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:53:49PM -0500 or thereabouts, Matthew R.
Dempsky wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:13:04PM -0400, Stephen wrote:
Interesting. I've seen the unsubscribe footer on pgp signed
messages,
reading with mutt, on this list -- t
On Apr 18, 2006, at 5:27 PM, David E. Fox wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:04:34 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed
message
I surmised that
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 11:53:49PM -0500 or thereabouts, Matthew R. Dempsky
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:13:04PM -0400, Stephen wrote:
> > Interesting. I've seen the unsubscribe footer on pgp signed messages,
> > reading with mutt, on this list -- this thread in fact.
>
> Would you mind p
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:04:34PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed message
> may or may not show it depending on the MUA used. However, if you look
> at the me
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 09:13:04PM -0400, Stephen wrote:
> Interesting. I've seen the unsubscribe footer on pgp signed messages,
> reading with mutt, on this list -- this thread in fact.
Would you mind pointing one out? I just took a look and the only
unsubscribe sigs I saw in signed messages w
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 03:13:48PM -0800 or thereabouts, Ken Irving wrote:
> That said, my mutt viewer doesn't show it, even if well-formed, when
> the message is in HTML and a "helper" program is used to translate
> that to text. I haven't waded in to see why that is; maybe if/when the
> situ
"David E. Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:04:34 -0700
> Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> > that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed message
>
> I surmis
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 02:27:50PM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:04:34 -0700
> Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> > that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed messag
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:59:07PM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:23 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > But your message doesn't have it!
> >
> > Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
>
> Aha. Using sylpheed,
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:04:34 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the consensus was that some MUA's show it and some don't but
> that mostly it was caused by pgp signing. That is a pgp-signed message
I surmised that after reading the thread - but ISTR being able to se
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 01:55:44PM -0700, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:05:30 -0700
> Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Interesting. So, I'm using mutt and there is no way I can see the sig
> > in a pgp signed (and I assume encrypted) message. But if I dit the
>
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:23 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > But your message doesn't have it!
>
> Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Aha. Using sylpheed, it's there, if I "view source" but it is not there
when I read the message regul
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:05:30 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting. So, I'm using mutt and there is no way I can see the sig
> in a pgp signed (and I assume encrypted) message. But if I dit the
Not to add more fuel to the fire (g) - I use sylpheed on Etch and I see
On Apr 16, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 11:39:25AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:17:33AM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
And, how much screwing around would it be to make the
li
Mike McCarty wrote:
Try using CTRL-U to view the entire text.
Mike
I did... which is why I said "display" rather than "contain" originally...
--
Blessings
Wulfmann
Wulf Credo:
Respect the elders. Teach the young. Co-operate with the pack.
Play when you can. Hunt when you must. Rest in betw
Wulfy wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
I use Thunderbird. All (and only) PGP-signed messages don't display
the unsubscribe message. From what you say, it's also a problem with
the "proper" e-mail clients that those who hate HTML e-mail recommend.
Correction: I just found an HTML mail th
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 11:39:25AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:17:33AM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> >>>On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> And, how much screwing around would it be to make the listserver actualy
> wrap it with
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 08:17:59AM +, Lynn Kilroy wrote:
> It seems to me, that if your client removes everything below
> --
> then that is a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
You are. Often times the hiding (not removal, removal implies that the
data is forever lost) of anything
On Apr 15, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:17:33AM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
And, how much screwing around would it be to make the listserv
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 01:22:39 -0700
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 April 2006 01:17, Lynn Kilroy wrote:
>
> > It seems to me, that if your client removes everything below
> >
> > --
> >
> > then that is a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
>
> That's not a bug, but a fe
On Sunday 16 April 2006 01:17, Lynn Kilroy wrote:
> It seems to me, that if your client removes everything below
>
> --
>
> then that is a bug. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
That's not a bug, but a feature one should be aware of.
--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROT
From: Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: ATTN: Barbara Oncay
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 00:28:25 -0400
On Friday 14 April 2006 21:57, Ken Irving wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:11:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14
From: Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> But your message doesn't have it!
Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm
your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchbo
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 07:08:47AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:33:58PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >>
> >>...for rfc2046 messages. My understa
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:17:33AM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > And, how much screwing around would it be to make the listserver actualy
> > > wrap it with the p
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 10:33:58PM -0800, Ken Irving wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> > And, how much screwing around would it be to make the listserver actualy
> > wrap it with the proper mimetype declaration?
>
> The SmartList (used for the debian li
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:15:35PM -0700, Marc Shapiro wrote:
>
> No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow.
> What?! Look, somebody's got to have some damn perspective around here.
> Boom. Sooner or later ... boom!
That would be me.
-- Hendrik Boom
>
> - Susan Ivanova: B5 -
Wulfy wrote:
Wulfy wrote:
I use Thunderbird. All (and only) PGP-signed messages don't display
the unsubscribe message. From what you say, it's also a problem with
the "proper" e-mail clients that those who hate HTML e-mail recommend.
Correction: I just found an HTML mail that doesn't show
Wulfy wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Interesting. So, I'm using mutt and there is no way I can see the sig
in a pgp signed (and I assume encrypted) message. But if I dit the
raw message it is there. It's something in mutt that doesn't show the
sig outside the signed message. Tbird obviously
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Interesting. So, I'm using mutt and there is no way I can see the sig
in a pgp signed (and I assume encrypted) message. But if I dit the
raw message it is there. It's something in mutt that doesn't show the
sig outside the signed message. Tbird obviously doesn't have
On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:33:58PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
[...snip...]
...for rfc2046 messages. My understanding is that all MUAs should
show the trailer when handling unencapsulated rfc822 m
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> >Doofus wrote:
> >>Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
> >>incidences of people blithely advising "do as it says at the
> >>bottom of
> >>the post
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 12:28:25AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 14 April 2006 21:57, Ken Irving wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:11:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> This is not the first time I've seen an argument about whether a
> >> specific message had the unsubscribe tag-
On Friday 14 April 2006 11:09, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:23 -0700
>
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > But your message doesn't have it!
> >
> > Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
> >
> > --
> > Steve C. Lamb
On Friday 14 April 2006 13:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
>> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>>
>> Not true, here's the unsub
On Friday 14 April 2006 21:57, Ken Irving wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:11:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> > > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
>> > > either.
Marc Shapiro wrote:
I'm using Firefox and the unsub messages shows up at the bottom of
some posts, but not others. It is in the raw message text of those
that do not display it.
Sorry, that should be Thunderbird, not Firefox. Standard Debian Package
1.0.2 in Sarge.
--
Marc Shapiro
No bo
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:55:49 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
Yes, it's very clean. ;-]
Cybe R. Wizard
--
So, if anybody wants to have free hardware sent to them: d
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am repl
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:11:20PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
> > It's there.
>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>
> Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am replying to:
>
> To UNSUB
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:33:58PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>[...snip...]
> >>Taking a brief look at the specs, but not enough to grok them:
> >>I suspect that the probl
On Apr 14, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Doofus wrote:
Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
incidences of people blithely advising "d
On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
[...snip...]
Taking a brief look at the specs, but not enough to grok them:
I suspect that the problem is that the notice is tacked on _after_
the attachments---essentially turning the
On Friday 14 April 2006 16:06, Doofus wrote:
>Steve Lamb wrote:
>>Andrei Popescu wrote:
>>>But your message doesn't have it!
>>
>>Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
>
>It isn't shown by this Thunderbird client. Not unless you hit Ctrl-U
> and bash through the source.
>
>Since o
On Friday 14 April 2006 15:23, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> No it doesn't Steve. If the message is a signed message such as you
>> are posting, that extra append by the mailing list server isn't
>> there.
>
>Yes it is, Gene. Just because the email client does not display
> it doe
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> >Point is that there is a different condition between it being there and
> >the client failing to show it. How? Because if it wasn't there NO* client
> >would show it. Just
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:51:00AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
> > > I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
> > > I have sent more than 10 e-mails with no response.
>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> >Doofus wrote:
> >>Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
> >>incidences of people blithely advising "do as it says at the
> >>bottom of
> >>the post
On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Doofus wrote:
Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
incidences of people blithely advising "do as it says at the
bottom of
the post" to other people who evidently can't see anything at the
bottom
of the post, then
Doofus wrote:
> Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
> incidences of people blithely advising "do as it says at the bottom of
> the post" to other people who evidently can't see anything at the bottom
> of the post, then to argue "oh yes it is there as long as you kno
Gene Heskett wrote:
> No it doesn't Steve. If the message is a signed message such as you are
> posting, that extra append by the mailing list server isn't there.
Yes it is, Gene. Just because the email client does not display it does
not mean it isn't there. Those are two different condit
Steve Lamb wrote:
Andrei Popescu wrote:
But your message doesn't have it!
Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
It isn't shown by this Thunderbird client. Not unless you hit Ctrl-U and
bash through the source.
Since one of the points of this thread seems to b
On Friday 14 April 2006 13:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> But your message doesn't have it!
>
>Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
No it isn't, but it is present in the headers also.
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should ad
On Friday 14 April 2006 13:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> But your message doesn't have it!
>
>Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
No it doesn't Steve. If the message is a signed message such as you are
posting, that extra append by the mailing list server is
On Friday 14 April 2006 12:58, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:33:35 -0700
>
>Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
>> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>>
>> Not true, here
On Friday 14 April 2006 12:33, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
>> either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>
>Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am
> replying to:
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:23 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > But your message doesn't have it!
>
> Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
>
> --
> Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
>PGP Ke
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:05:30 -0700
Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
> >
David Kirchner wrote:
> sure. What does the email specification demand when someone sends a
> multipart/* message, and then includes text outside of the multipart
> "parts"?
Not sure. Never got into the multipart specs.
> Maybe the Debian list software should detect that and encapsulate the
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> But your message doesn't have it!
Yes it does. Please stop spreading misinformation.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:58:15PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:33:35 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
> >
>
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>
> Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am replying to:
>
> To UNSUB
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 09:33:35 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>
> Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am replying to:
On 4/14/06, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> > either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
>
> Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am replying to:
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> Huh, look at that. It doesn't show up in any of the attachments
> either. Just not there. Good eye Gene.
Not true, here's the unsub instructions from the message I am replying to:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:15:52AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> Well, I was trying to be nice to what was a pretty hypocritical
> message. :)
More than once I've replied to unsubscribe messages with: look at the
unsubscribe instructions at the bottom of this message, or something
like that..
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:55, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:45:06AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Friday 14 April 2006 01:51, Kevin Mark wrote:
>> >On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrot
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:45:06AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 14 April 2006 01:51, Kevin Mark wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
> >> > I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
> >
On Friday 14 April 2006 01:51, Kevin Mark wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
>> > I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
>> > I have sent more than 10 e-mails with no response.
>> > I have used
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:54:31PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
> > I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
> > I have sent more than 10 e-mails with no response.
> > I have used the cancel link but it only sends me to a link where I
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 12:41, Barbara Oncay wrote:
> I have been trying to unsubscribe with no success.
> I have sent more than 10 e-mails with no response.
> I have used the cancel link but it only sends me to a link where I am
> directed to subscribe to a link. TELLL ME HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE OR
86 matches
Mail list logo
