Bill Sconce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We've had threads here previously about ACPI. [1] [2] [3]
A very informative post. I found all of this to be very interesting.
Thanks for sharing.
It seems like you did quite a bit of research into this problem.
One thing that this highlights, to me,
On Jan 23, 2005, at 22:30, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this
mailing list still aren't available online.
http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html
-
Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Comp
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 23, 2005, at 22:30, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
>
>> One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this
>> mailing list still aren't available online.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html
The a
On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:03, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact
only go back to 196 days at this instant.
Ah, bugger.
I could mirror the list on my server, I already have mailman setup for
DLSLUG and sufficient free disk space. Does anybody ha
If anyone wants to suggest an archiver/web frontend, I can set it up
on my server; I can afford to store at least a few hundred meg of
archives, probably even a gig.
--DTVZ
Note: As anyone I've replied to has probably noticed, I usually send
the email intended for the list to an individual before
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could mirror the list on my server, I already have mailman setup for
> DLSLUG and sufficient free disk space. Does anybody have historical
> mbox files?
Somebody probably has these. I don't have a complete archive, but
I've got *some*.
Some folks
On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:48, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Some folks on this list are *very* concerned with their email
addresses appearing on a web-accessible archive (they don't want to
give anything to the spammers). I share this concern, although I
think that there are folks on this list who are more a
> I'm curious - is there anyone here who expects total privacy with the
> address they use to post here? If I were a spammer I'd subscribe to
Hahahaha. :-(
I wish I had a nickel for everytime the email privacy/mail archive/etc
issue was rehashed & beaten to death. You could look in the archive
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:48, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
>
>> Some folks on this list are *very* concerned with their email
>> addresses appearing on a web-accessible archive (they don't want to
>> give anything to the spammers). I share this concern, althoug
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:44:52 -0500, Tom Buskey wrote:
>
> A way around this might be a poll that put the archive idea to a vote,
> then go with the majority. Then put that in the charter so we can end
> these debates by pointing at the charter.
I'd like the archive. However, would gmane be a be
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:44:52PM -0500, Tom Buskey wrote:
> Seriously, if you can remove all email addresses from the archive, I'd
> bet you'd solve 90% of the problems people have with creating an
> archive.
I'm pretty sure I've historically been the most vocal complainer, and
I've followed the
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, at 12:03pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html
>
> The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact only
> go back to 196 days at this instant.
According to their FAQ, they keep mail indef
Benjamin Scott writes:
> According to their FAQ, they keep mail indefinitely. They say they only
> keep the most recent 3000 msgs in data or thread indexes; is that what you
> mean? Or are they not working as advertised?
All I know is that I could only look back 196 days at that instant.
If t
Kevin D. Clark writes:
> Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This appears to be the main stumbling block. Mailman has an e-mail
>> address obfuscation feature but it's very sad ('user at domain'). If
>> I were writing a harvester I think I'd throw in the 1-line regex to
>> fix these
14 matches
Mail list logo
