Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-31 Thread graywolf
It finally showed up in my email the next message after this. Is kind of funny, considering the content, heh? -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 Aug 2004 at 0:48, graywolf wrote: Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. LO

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-27 Thread graywolf
Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. E-mail is weird. I remember getting a e-mail from a friend who lived a few blocks away (in Charlotte, NC, USA) and seeing by the routing info that it had come to me via Austra

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-27 Thread Jostein
Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread Doug Franklin
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:46:48 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet We have one. It's called the Gossip Fence. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread Don Sanderson
ting lost, unless it's in the implementation on the pdml.net server. Don > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > >

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread graywolf
Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to

RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread Don Sanderson
rvers or add another server to the cluster. Don > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > > > I think a lot of e-mail hi

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread frank theriault
EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:35:07 -0400 I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this.

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread graywolf
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belin

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread Peter J. Alling
rsion of the internet Shel From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Peter J. Alling wrote: This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but

RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread frank theriault
fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:28:33 -0700 Odd, it's not shown up once on my copy of the

Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]

2004-08-26 Thread Shel Belinkoff
EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > > Peter J. Alling wrote: > > This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but > > this is ridicules. > > Again, this is because t