=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 16.May'07 at 21:21:34 -0400 -=
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:09:20PM +0200, René Clerc wrote:
* Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [15-05-2007 17:25]:
On 2007-05-15 10:29:19 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
This message is posted from an invalid address.
On 2007-05-16 21:21:34 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Indeed, why?
You're asking for help and input here. People are happy to give
that -- but some at least might wish to inquire off-list, or send
e-mail off-list. You're making things unnecessarily hard for at
least some of the folks that want to
I am not sure, here is my muttrc
Thanx
Danny
Expanded threads is the default, iirc.
what do you have in your ~/.muttrc concerning threads?
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:05:04PM +0200, it looks like Danny sent me:
Hi guys,
My apologies if this was asked a million times before.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 04:13 PM, quoth Danny:
I am not sure, here is my muttrc
Your muttrc may be affected by a system-wide muttrc. To find out what
mutt thinks your configuration is, try this:
mutt -D
(to save it to a file: mutt -D file.txt)
On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 9:18:45 +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
The full headers are:- [private]
Thanks. This header and the previously posted body don't match.
I assume it's a mistake, and it comes from the other broken mail, right?
Anyway: This full header is completely broken,
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:30:27PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
On 2007-05-16 21:21:34 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Indeed, why?
You're asking for help and input here. People are happy to give
that -- but some at least might wish to inquire off-list, or send
e-mail off-list.
If people
Ok, can't see anything in my system-wide muttrc concerning threads. But here is
my system-wide muttrc, maybe you guys can make something out of it.
I am on Debian SARGE. the system-wide muttrc is /etc/Muttrc
Thanx again for your time
Danny
Your muttrc may be affected by a system-wide muttrc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 04:52 PM, quoth Danny:
Ok, can't see anything in my system-wide muttrc concerning threads.
But here is my system-wide muttrc, maybe you guys can make something
out of it.
...? I think you forgot the attachment.
The `mutt
=- Kyle Wheeler wrote on Thu 17.May'07 at 9:31:01 -0600 -=
On Thursday, May 17 at 04:52 PM, quoth Danny:
Ok, can't see anything in my system-wide muttrc concerning
threads. But here is my system-wide muttrc, maybe you guys can
make something out of it.
...? I think you forgot the
The `mutt -D` output is more useful, though, since that shows the
result of *all* the config files (and we don't have to worry about
whether we missed something).
mutt -D does nothing. My version of mutt is 1.5.9i. I think I will look around
on the net some more.
Thank you for your time,
On Thu, May 17, at 08:06 Danny wrote:
The `mutt -D` output is more useful, though, since that shows the
result of *all* the config files (and we don't have to worry about
whether we missed something).
mutt -D does nothing. My version of mutt is 1.5.9i. I think I will look around
on
Actually I don't think spam management is off topic, and even if it
were I'm not on mutt-ot and not going to sign up. It's completely
natural that off-topic discussions arise from on-topic threads on
mailing lists, and I think trying to reroute them is largely pointless
and a bit misguided. I
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 04:36:35PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
Actually I don't think spam management is off topic, and even if it
were I'm not on mutt-ot and not going to sign up. It's completely
natural that off-topic discussions arise from on-topic threads on
mailing lists, and I think
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:09:36PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
You're probably aware of greylisting already.
indeed.
The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery. So a
false positive means someone gets a
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery. So a
false positive means someone gets a bounce, which alerts them to the
problem.
Which is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, May 17 at 05:18 PM, quoth Derek Martin:
The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique
that doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery.
So a false positive means someone gets a bounce, which alerts
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 02:38:15PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
For your current setup, you might consider adding a reply-to header
pointing at the list so that mails don't go to the bogus address by
default for humans.
You will note that such reply-to already exists, and has for a
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:49:03PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Now, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on either of these
methods (though I acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses)...
but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black here?
I mean, you have two potential
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:49:03PM -0600, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Now, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on either of these
methods (though I acknowledge both their strengths and weaknesses)...
but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black here?
Obviously I don't think so. I think
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:30:26PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
And the comment in my sig is anything but glib. A great deal of
thought and effort went into all parts of my spam management scheme,
including weighing any potential irritation of people who might want
to send me mail against the
Alain and others.
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:58:28PM +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 9:18:45 +1000, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
The full headers are:- [private]
Thanks. This header and the previously posted body don't match.
I assume it's a mistake, and it comes
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:53:06PM -0400, Omari Norman wrote:
It comes off pretty glibly. If it works for you, great, but it is
definitely a turn-off. Ordinarily I wouldn't care enough about it to
tell you, but since you seem very interested in receiving opinions on
this subject...
I'm not
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 07:56:23PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I assure you, I'm not
interested. People provide them anyway. No offense at all meant
(sincerely)... it's just that I've already thought this through in a
lot of detail, and I'm very
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:05:40PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
FYI, greylisting doesn't work like that. There's no need (mostly) to
manually intervene.
Challenge-response anti-spam methodologies are also often referred to
as greylisting, e.g. in this document:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Well where's the fun in that? ;-)
--
Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Wow. I mean, wow.
You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant. Well, if so,
that's true, I am arrogant. But I'm also
Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Wow. I mean, wow.
You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant. Well, if so,
that's true, I am
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:45:54PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:10:35PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Wow. I mean, wow.
You're missing another alternative. Just don't post.
Oh, as to the nature of your comments...
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 06:24:23PM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote:
Perhaps you mean to suggest that you think I'm arrogant.
No. I don't demand that people be humble. I was talking more about the
problem that you've stopped listening to people because you're smarter.
You're not so smart, after
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:47:16PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
No. I don't demand that people be humble. I was talking more about the
problem that you've stopped listening to people because you're smarter.
You're not so smart, after all.
I haven't stopped listening... but people do tend to
30 matches
Mail list logo
