M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> In any case, it has NOTHING to do with OpenOffice, _reading_ email or
> replies. I have checked one of my messages in the same archive, and I
> see no equivalent information:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=117127&raw=true
>
Really? Try:
Terry wrote:
>
> NoOp wrote:
>> M. Fioretti wrote:
>>
>>> In any case, it has NOTHING to do with OpenOffice, _reading_ email or
>>> replies. I have checked one of my messages in the same archive, and I
>>> see no equivalent information:
>>>
>>> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=use
M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 17:30:24 PM -0700, NoOp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> M. Fioretti wrote:
You are of course correct on all points. My apologies for not adding the
>>Of course, I too agree that information like that should not be
>>published on the Internet.
quote.
>> >
>
I missed that. There are two tabs on the Mail Reader - "Standard
Display" and "Raw Display". The first is bad enough.
Why publish any of this information? Surely it is the questions and
answers which are relevant. This is the reason I unsubscribed from
these lists previously.
Someone sug
It's problematic, whichever approach you use.
I was using gmane but have found the use of an email client more
convenient, using filters, a separate folder for each list and the
option to list emails by thread.
If you use gmane and change your email address, you have to resubscribe
to the li
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 17:30:24 PM -0700, NoOp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >
> > In any case, it has NOTHING to do with OpenOffice, _reading_ email or
> > replies.
What I meant here is that if Jan is really pissed off that his IP
address is merrily distributed around the Inter
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 11:33:00 AM +1000, Terry
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I missed that. There are two tabs on the Mail Reader - "Standard
> Display" and "Raw Display". The first is bad enough.
>
> Why publish any of this information?
1) Because there are legitimate uses which may save time
Do you have that much sway with your ISP?
I doubt that anyone on the list can persuade his/her ISP to change its
practices. They would not matter if the information were not published.
M. Fioretti wrote:
What I meant here is that if Jan is really pissed off that his IP
address is merrily di
Thanks for the information. I do not altogether understand it but I
think I have personally settled on a procedure to reduce the risk of
spam. I don't want to go through the procedure, again, of eliminating
an email address and notifying all contacts of the change.
Your point 1 is surely con
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 17:05:52 PM +1000, Terry
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Do you have that much sway with your ISP?
Of course not. But the right thing to do, if one is really bothered,
is still to complain publicly if they screw, and switch, complaining
publicly again, if they keep doing it.
>
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 17:21:48 PM +1000, Terry
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Thanks for the information. I do not altogether understand it but I
> think I have personally settled on a procedure to reduce the risk of
> spam. I don't want to go through the procedure, again, of eliminating
> an em
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 09:54:02 AM +0200, io ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I have said just that publishing ALSO the sender address *is* a good
> thing that can help other users, and surely helped me: I have found
> several times people mentioning in mailing list "I'll write a macro
> so-and-so": the
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 16:45:39 PM -0700, NoOp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I don't receive a local copy as I only access via the gmane nntp server.
> However, when I look at your msg source via gmane those IP's etc are
> _not_ shown. So what is being put on the archives is more extensive than
> wha
13 matches
Mail list logo
