What follows is an off-topic meta-comment, so if you weren't following
earlier stuff in this thread, you might as well stop reading. My
apologies for furthering this.
On Wed, 2 May 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
I don't think that Ron is choosing to put this .sig in h
> But for the
> sanity and comfort of other list users, would it be too much to ask that
> people with annoying tacked-on .sig's use a personal mail account when
> posting to the list? I hear Google offers nice email accounts for a
> reasonable price.
That often results in people sending html in
I see not a lot has changed on egg^H^H^Hnanog. I'll forward to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
to see where that goes (only useful reply). Thanks for the entertainment!
:-) -ron
-
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary infor
On May 2, 2007, at 4:01 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to
Ron da Silva wrote:
I'll happily send your question to my IT and legal folks. :-)
-ron
Point out that you're sending the language to widely disseminated and
archived mailing lists, and send them this as well
NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged
inform
Warren Kumari wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
>>>
>>> Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of l
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being
> disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful"
> in what country? No one's going to delete all
On Wednesday 02 May 2007 14:08, Ron da Silva wrote:
> On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
> >
> > Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
>
> Both practices arguably ingenious or i
On May 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
Both practices argua
On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being
> disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful"
> in what country? No one's going to delete all copies. Blah, blah, blah...
I'
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
>
> Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
Both practices arguably ingenious or idiotic...
On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
>
> Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
Both practices arguably ingenious or idiotic...
> Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent dire
: Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ron da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Subject: 96.0.0.0/6 reachability testing
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:21:17 -040
13 matches
Mail list logo
