On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 07:33:46PM +, Tom Insam wrote:
>oooh, challenge!
If anyone's still in need of a copy of 42.zip, I'm happy to supply it on
request. :-)
Roger
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:43:17PM -, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>
> It has certainly caught everything that's been thrown at it here (about 1 in
>
> 650 of our incoming messages is infected).
XXX has a non-8.3 filename,
is perl-5.6.1.tar.gz (didn't this
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 11:06:21AM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> [NB - posted to two mailing lists, careful with them replies]
Responding to London.pm only ...
> Can anyone think of a way of 'nice'ing a process so that it doesn't hammer
> the disks? nice only affects scheduling, but we *reall
At 18:43 20/03/2002 +, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>It has certainly caught everything that's been thrown at it here (about 1
>in 650 of our incoming messages is infected).
oooh, challenge!
Tom
:> In hindsight, it's too bad they weren't able to take advantage of it.
:> It wouldn't look very
Now that ORA have apparently sent out all of the acceptance emails
for our TPC proposals, it might be a good time to start thinking
about our TPC quiz team (assuming that there will be a quiz this
year).
Are all of last year's competitors going to be there? Do you
want to take part again? Is the
--On Wednesday 20 March 2002 17:31 + Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
>
> Bollocks alert! Bollocks alert!
> The above statement cannot be
--tsOsTdHNUZQcU9Ye
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
An entity claiming to be Nicholas Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:=20
: This message is to simply warn you that your virus checking system may be
: infected wit
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> And in another time, Some Software wrote:
> >
> > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
>
> Bollocks alert! Bollocks alert!
> The above statement cann
This message is to simply warn you that your virus checking system may be
infected with exaggerated claims.
.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 04:09:00PM -, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
> I suppose it makes sense that the virus-checker is as simple-minded as the
> software it seeks to protect (and yes, I d
I suppose it makes sense that the virus-checker is as simple-minded as the
software it seeks to protect (and yes, I do, $DEITY help me, know what they
think they are protecting against), but this made me giggle:
> From: Email Virus Scanner [mailto:postmaster@xx]
> Sent: 20 March 2002 15
> Perhaps that tells you something about heavily "designed" sites. I didn't
> make any special effort to make my sites search-engine-friendly, they just
> turned out that way because they weren't built by some overpaid crack
> monkey with three-quarter-length khaki trousers and an amusing T-shirt
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 05:06:44PM +, Simon Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 03:23:16PM +, Leo Lapworth wrote:
> > > I've been asked to get a company in to help improve
> > > our search engine ranking (which no one has even
> > > consid
[NB - posted to two mailing lists, careful with them replies]
Can anyone think of a way of 'nice'ing a process so that it doesn't hammer
the disks? nice only affects scheduling, but we *really* need to limit a
process to just FOO% of disk i/o, or at least make it wait if another
process wants th
13 matches
Mail list logo
