Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:20:10PM -0500, __Clint__ wrote: > I still don't believe for a second that this is due to me posting on any > public mail list. FreeBSD's mail servers and/or lists of email addresses > were somehow comprimised. Um, no. Public mailing lists are publically archived, and

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
__Clint__ wrote: I had no clue when I posted that bug report that I'd be hurting myself more than helping others. It's a shame what the spammers have done to the intrnet. Hopefully tar was at least fixed. A "new" tar(1), [actually, that was a "new GNU" tar(1)] was MFC-ed ("merged from -C

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread __Clint__
>Or, if you prefer a smaller URL: http://tinyurl.com/24lel I'll be damned. THANK YOU for getting to the bottom of this. As of opening this URL, I official retract all my previous statements that I'd never heard of the list. That WAS me. Sorry. I had no clue when I posted that bug repo

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread brian-freebsd-01
On 25 March, 2004, at 14:20 (-0500) __Clint__ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're not a victim of SPAM, you're an attention seeker. Go and look for > > help with that issue on another list. > > Considering that in 10 yrs I have only ever received human replies to 3 or > 4 "abuse@", but have prob

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread Kirk Strauser
At 2004-03-25T19:20:10Z, __Clint__ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I still don't believe for a second that this is due to me posting on any > public mail list. FreeBSD's mail servers and/or lists of email addresses > were somehow comprimised. The light is on, but nobody's home. Listen, Clint, it'

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread Chris
On Thursday 25 March 2004 01:20 pm, __Clint__ wrote: > > You're not a victim of SPAM, you're an attention seeker. Go and look for > > help with that issue on another list. > > Considering that in 10 yrs I have only ever received human replies to 3 or > 4 "abuse@", but have probably sent 200 or so,

Re: ! why? [original emails enclosed: last post hopefully]

2004-03-25 Thread __Clint__
> You're not a victim of SPAM, you're an attention seeker. Go and look for > help with that issue on another list. Considering that in 10 yrs I have only ever received human replies to 3 or 4 "abuse@", but have probably sent 200 or so, this was decidedly not a ploy for attention. I expected it