On Sunday 15 February 2009 16:56:35 steve wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> >> I understand that there has been a discussion about the matter on this
> >> mailing list, however, i am wondering whether the fact that these
> >> headers would contribute to the way google sees the archive was
> >> consider
On Sunday 15 February 2009 17:47:17 David wrote:
> But explain something. Why would you want the 'Recipient' in the line
> anyway? Curious minds want to know. another>> :-)
Actually, I like it. I sometimes get message to the list or to me personally
with the same subject. Just occasionally it
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 20:01 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> I guess I only have one question
>>> This was discussed and decided upon in August 2008 in the thread with
>>> the title "The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list" and no objections
>>> were raised at tha
Anne Wilson wrote:
I understand that there has been a discussion about the matter on this
mailing list, however, i am wondering whether the fact that these headers
would contribute to the way google sees the archive was considered ? What i
mean is, compare:
http://www.google.com/search?q=fedora+
Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 20:01 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> I guess I only have one question
>>
>> This was discussed and decided upon in August 2008 in the thread with
>> the title "The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list" and no objections
>> were raised at that time.
>>
>
>
On Sunday 15 February 2009, Tim wrote:
>On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 20:01 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> I guess I only have one question
>>
>> This was discussed and decided upon in August 2008 in the thread with
>> the title "The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list" and no objections
>> were raised at
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 20:01 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> I guess I only have one question
>
> This was discussed and decided upon in August 2008 in the thread with
> the title "The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list" and no objections
> were raised at that time.
I wonder whether any of the parti
Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 10:56 +, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> The matter of changing the name was discussed on this list.
>> Reasons were given for the need for a change. The community that
>> followed the thread had their say. The decision was based on that.
>> It's called 'democracy'.
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 10:56 +, Anne Wilson wrote:
> The matter of changing the name was discussed on this list. Reasons
> were given for the need for a change. The community that followed the
> thread had their say. The decision was based on that. It's called
> 'democracy'. Live with it.
On Sunday 15 February 2009 02:16:44 steve wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 02:33 +, g wrote:
> >> i said nothing, now, i am getting tired of seeing 'community ass'
> >> in 'recipient' column.
> >
> > What 'recipient' column?
> >
> > I've read this whole thread and
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 02:33 +, g wrote:
i said nothing, now, i am getting tired of seeing 'community ass'
in 'recipient' column.
What 'recipient' column?
I've read this whole thread and not one person has asked what mailer
you're using (nor did you think to te
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 02:33 +, g wrote:
> i said nothing, now, i am getting tired of seeing 'community ass'
> in 'recipient' column.
What 'recipient' column?
I've read this whole thread and not one person has asked what mailer
you're using (nor did you think to tell us in your post). Is ther
g wrote:
> David wrote:
>> signature is not verifiable.
> it has been for those that have asked.
I did not mean to offend you about this. Unless you publish your
*public* key there is not much point in signing your posts to a public list.
But do as you wish as I am sure that you will.
--
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Frank Murphy wrote:
>> Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> David wrote:
g
Speaking of annoying things... 8-)
You made the effort to create a gnupg key. You make the effort to sign
your posts. But you have not followed all of the instructions. Your
signature is
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 02:33 +, g wrote:
> when suggestion was made to make change to,
>
> "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora"
To be honest, I don't know what the point is of putting that there.
It's in the "TO" header. That's no use to NEW posters, and pointless
g wrote:
> David wrote:
>
>> signature is not verifiable.
>
> it has been for those that have asked.
>
>
That kind of misses the point if you are going to sign messages on a
mailing list.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Ed Greshko wrote:
> I'm just saying that compare that with bloated signatures
consider it bloat if you want.
to me and to several hundred that have written me, off list,
asking opinions and recommendations of sites listed and thanking
me for listing them, i do not consider it to be bloat.
so ex
David wrote:
> signature is not verifiable.
it has been for those that have asked.
--
peace out.
tc,hago.
g
.
in a free world without fences, who needs gates.
**
help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today
**
to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Oooop
> My deepest apologies to David I certainly did miss the "g" at the
> top and David's message ended up as a follow up to mine.
>
And to further castigate myself The threading "problem" only
happened since I was screwing around with thunderbird caus
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>> David wrote:
>>
>>> g
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking of annoying things... 8-)
>>>
>>> You made the effort to create a gnupg key. You make the effort to sign
>>> your posts. But you have not followed all of the instructions. Your
>>> signature is not ver
Ed Greshko wrote:
> David wrote:
>> g
>>
>>
>> Speaking of annoying things... 8-)
>>
>> You made the effort to create a gnupg key. You make the effort to sign
>> your posts. But you have not followed all of the instructions. Your
>> signature is not verifiable.
>>
>>
> Too bad you are entirely
David wrote:
> g
>
>
> Speaking of annoying things... 8-)
>
> You made the effort to create a gnupg key. You make the effort to sign
> your posts. But you have not followed all of the instructions. Your
> signature is not verifiable.
>
>
Too bad you are entirely wrong
Please go to http://
g
Speaking of annoying things... 8-)
You made the effort to create a gnupg key. You make the effort to sign
your posts. But you have not followed all of the instructions. Your
signature is not verifiable.
--
David
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https
g wrote:
> Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>
>> Your numbers are misleading
>>
>
> depends if you count '" "' and '.'. and my count was in error.
>
> Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora
> 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
>
> if using "fed
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Your numbers are misleading
depends if you count '" "' and '.'. and my count was in error.
Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
if using "fedora-list" or "fedora-support", only '
g wrote:
> greetings to one and all of 'community ass'. :)
>
>
> so how many more have noticed this? how many changed their column
> spacing so as not to?
>
> when suggestion was made to make change to,
>
> "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora"
>
> i said nothing, now,
On 02/13/2009 09:33 PM, g wrote:
> greetings to one and all of 'community ass'. :)
> i could elaborate, but i do not wish to waste more band width and
> storage space that others can use for their opinions.
>
I agree - no name at all would be a huge improvement, if there has to
be a name, make
greetings to one and all of 'community ass'. :)
so how many more have noticed this? how many changed their column
spacing so as not to?
when suggestion was made to make change to,
"Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora"
i said nothing, now, i am getting tired of seei
28 matches
Mail list logo
