Everything is fine here. :-)
/Steffen
> On 21 Nov 2015, at 08:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> On 21/11/15 07:02, Arc Riley wrote:
>> I'm on email, it did not go to spam.
>
> Can anybody else comment on whether they got it or not?
>
> Does anybody who did or did not receive it see any headers ind
On 21/11/15 07:02, Arc Riley wrote:
> I'm on email, it did not go to spam.
Can anybody else comment on whether they got it or not?
Does anybody who did or did not receive it see any headers indicating
how Google's spam filters are classifying the message?
I'm hearing far too many reports of thes
On 20/11/15 23:32, Dave Cridland wrote:
> The original went straight into my Google spam folder.
>
> Conspiracy theories welcome.
>
I don't use gmail myself. Could you contact the support team and ask
why this message was marked as spam and let me know so I can be more
careful writing messag
The original went straight into my Google spam folder.
Conspiracy theories welcome.
On 20 Nov 2015 20:31, "Ralph Meijer" wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Daniel Pocock sent out the attached Call for Participation for the
> FOSDEM 2016 Realtime Devroom, a devroom co-organised by the XSF and the
> telephony
Dear all,
Daniel Pocock sent out the attached Call for Participation for the
FOSDEM 2016 Realtime Devroom, a devroom co-organised by the XSF and the
telephony crowd. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten any XMPP-related talk
proposals so far. I just noticed that the CfP never ended up in these
other m