On Thursday 21 February 2002 11:55 am, Ian Balchin wrote:
> Disputable. Pegasus Mail from NZ could also lay claim to that, and
> is also free too.
>
> Pegasus has identities to handle as many different pops as you want.
> Every single configurable option is saved with each identity.
>
>
> and p
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:27:37PM +, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> n for Outlook Express that would allow it to read
> > > the messages?
> >
> > Think about this more carefully. There are _lots_ of different email
> > clients out there, some with support for verifying digital signatures,
> > some wit
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:31:44PM -0500, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
> > messages, with the actual message attached. Why is this?
>
>
> Your
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 04:35:33PM +0100, J. Paul Bruns-Bielkowicz wrote:
| - Original Message -
| From: "Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To:
| Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:54 PM
| Subject: Re: Blank Messages To Mailing List With Attachments Containing
| Me
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 08:40:58AM +, Patrick Kirk wrote:
| On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 23:59, Craig Dickson wrote:
| > begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
|
| > > Every windows box has it.
| >
| > Sure, like downloading an executable installer for a better program is
| > so hard.
|
| It is so hard.
S
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Dickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: Blank Messages To Mailing List With Attachments Containing
Message
>This has been reported to Microsoft as a bug.
>Their response (check their
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
> It is so hard. There are no other windows email clients that have the
> ability to put shortcuts on panels. Even if there were, why bother when
> OE is there and works?
I think we're having a basic disagreement over the meaning of "works".
Zero-click virus dist
At 20:05 20/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:
At 04:30 PM 2/20/2002, Craig Dickson wrote:
My mistake. It's been a while since I paid much attention to Windows
mail clients. Is there still a free version of Eudora?
Craig
Yes there is a "free" version of Eudora, BUT is has advertisements displayed.
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:38:40 + (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Darryl L. Pierce") wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
>> Hi
>> I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
>> messages, with the actual message attached. Why is th
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 23:59, Craig Dickson wrote:
> begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
>
> > Every windows box has it.
>
> Sure, like downloading an executable installer for a better program is
> so hard.
>
It is so hard. There are no other windows email clients that have the
ability to put short
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Malinovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Blank Messages To Mailing List With Attachments Containing
Message
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
>
> > People
On 20 Feb 2002, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> People don't put up with Outlook Express...they use it because it is the
> best email client for windows. Its free. Its easy to use. Every
> windows box has it. I didn't switch from mutt on linux until Evolution
> came out with a panel like the Outlook E
At 04:30 PM 2/20/2002, Craig Dickson wrote:
begin Brian Clark
quotation:
> * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Feb 20. 2002 19:01]:
>
> > > Its free.
> >
> > So are a number of others. TheBat!, for one. I haven't used it
myself
> > but I've heard a lot of good things about it.
>
> No, TheBat!
begin Brian Clark quotation:
> * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Feb 20. 2002 19:01]:
>
> > > Its free.
> >
> > So are a number of others. TheBat!, for one. I haven't used it myself
> > but I've heard a lot of good things about it.
>
> No, TheBat! is not free. It's well worth the $35 bucks,
* Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Feb 20. 2002 19:01]:
> > Its free.
> So are a number of others. TheBat!, for one. I haven't used it myself
> but I've heard a lot of good things about it.
No, TheBat! is not free. It's well worth the $35 bucks, however, if
you're a Windows user.
--
Brian Cl
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
> People don't put up with Outlook Express...they use it because it is the
> best email client for windows.
If you really like email viruses and not being able to conveniently read
signed messages, then maybe that's not a completely insane opinion.
> Its free.
So
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:27:37PM +, Patrick Kirk wrote:
| People don't put up with Outlook Express...they use it because it is
| the best email client for windows.
MM, no. Can you say "I Love You"? How about "Nimda"? Is there a
reason that Outlook [Express] is the target for all the emai
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:32:52PM +, Patrick Kirk wrote:
| On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 21:47, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
| > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:31:44 -0500
| > "Darryl L. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
| > > > I h
n for Outlook Express that would allow it to read
> > the messages?
>
> Think about this more carefully. There are _lots_ of different email
> clients out there, some with support for verifying digital signatures,
> some without. Out of all of them, _only_ Outlook Express makes it hard
> to read s
* Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
>
> > The question is why do so many otherwise sensible people feel the need
> > for digital signatures on this list? After all, most of the messages
> > are not the type of thing that justify it.
>
> Depends. On
begin Patrick Kirk quotation:
> The question is why do so many otherwise sensible people feel the need
> for digital signatures on this list? After all, most of the messages
> are not the type of thing that justify it.
Depends. Once you have the capability to sign your messages, why not use
it
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 21:47, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:31:44 -0500
> "Darryl L. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list po
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:31:44 -0500
"Darryl L. Pierce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
> > messages, with the actual message attached. Why is th
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> I have noticed that some people post messages in HTML. Why is that?
They're using retarded mailers like OE with the default settings.
--
Baloo
* Charlie Grosvenor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
> Hi
> I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
> messages, with the actual message attached. Why is this?
I have noticed that some people post messages in HTML. Why is that?
Dima
--
I'm going to exit now
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 08:27:08PM -, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
> Hi
> I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
> messages, with the actual message attached. Why is this?
That's not actually the case. The problem is that you're using Outlook
Express, which do
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 21:27, Charlie Grosvenor wrote:
> I have noticed that a number of people who post to this list post blank
> messages, with the actual message attached. Why is this?
>
Use a normal email reader, not dinky-toys look-out express, which
handles email correctly (and doesn't
Hi
I have noticed that a number of
people who post to this list post blank messages, with the actual message
attached. Why is this?
Thankyou
Charlie
28 matches
Mail list logo
