Ansgar, Scott,
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>
> On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
Guys, this is or-talk, in your previous posts I find all kin
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>> Once again your presumption is mistaken. I had indeed read that
>>> gloriously opaque stretch of text, though it has been a whil
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
wrote:
>On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>>> Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on m
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
wrote:
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>>>>>> Ah, I see. It is the d
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>>>>> Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were
>>>>>> confusing me.
>>&
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:33:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
wrote:
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
>>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
>> On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>>> Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were
>>>&
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers
>On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>>> Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
>>> me.
>>>
>>> Why dupl
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
>> Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
>> me.
>>
>> Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
>> fact that
st in case that's what you prefer.)
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**
* Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu *
**
* "A we
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were confusing
me.
Why duplicate messages? As somebody else has pointed out recently, the
fact that I can post on or-talk means I am subscribed to or-talk.
I was trying to email you and it bounced:
Final-Recipient: rfc822; benn...@cs.niu.edu
Original-Recipient:
rfc822;benn...@cs.niu.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mp.cs.niu.edu
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1
... Access denied
Was my response mail going through?
If not, send another address by private mail, pse.
I've tried five times using different SMTP servers, but your address
SMTP ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is blocking the most ones I use!
Thanks!
Greets
--
BlueStar88 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: T
14 matches
Mail list logo
