At 10:20 AM 4/5/05 -0700, $Bill Luebkert wrote:
So you have the right attitude, but now you need training. And
since your using Lotus Notes, your boss may need training too. :)
All PHB's are in need of training.
===
I get this acronym:
PHB Psycho Hose Beast
??
8--
All PHB's are in need of training.
===
I get this acronym:
PHB Psycho Hose Beast
??
8--
It's Pointy Haired Boss from the comic strip Dilbert. I'm positively
sure that Scott Adams worked for Intel at some stage of his life . . .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All PHB's are in need of training.
===
I get this acronym:
PHB Psycho Hose Beast
??
Better than these three:
Packet Handling Buffer
PCI Host Bridge
Per Hop Behavior
--
,-/- __ _ _ $Bill Luebkert
The reply appears in context.
Cheers,
Rob
- Original Message -
From: Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'perl-win32-users' perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OT] Spam to list
Can some one explain why bottom
- Original Message -
From: Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'perl-win32-users' perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: [OT] Spam to list
Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting?
The reply
1) Remove all .sigs and other parts of the
message that aren't pertinent
to your reply. (Don't be lazy and force it on the next
guy.)
2) Respond to each sentence/paragraph immediately below that
item and
keep the quoting intact (the stuff on the left)
so people know you
said what.
Lloyd Sartor wrote:
1) Remove all .sigs and other parts of the message that aren't pertinent
to your reply. (Don't be lazy and force it on the next guy.)
2) Respond to each sentence/paragraph immediately below that item and
keep the quoting intact (the stuff on the left) so people
At 10:20 AM 4/5/05 -0700, $Bill Luebkert wrote:
So you have the right attitude, but now you need training. And
since your using Lotus Notes, your boss may need training too. :)
All PHB's are in need of training. ;)
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---= WTC 911 =--
...ne cede
Chris Wagner wrote:
All PHB's are in need of training. ;)
Had to Google that one. ;)
--
,-/- __ _ _ $Bill LuebkertMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(_/ / )// // DBE CollectiblesMailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ ) /-- o // // Castle of Medieval Myth Magic
$Bill Luebkert wrote:
Chris Wagner wrote:
All PHB's are in need of training. ;)
Had to Google that one. ;)
http://www.acronymfinder.com is your friend :-)
Alex
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe:
Gerhard Petrowitsch wrote:
I completely support $Bill's suggestion.
But we could also try to attack the problem at it's root,
i.e. the lazy oof-replyers. (I say 'lazy' because it must
be possible to configure an oof reply to whom it responds
or better, to whom it doesn't).
If we spam
)
|
| Subject:Re: [OT] Spam to list
Gerhard Petrowitsch wrote:
:
: I'm very sorry, but I have to use Lotus Notes here for my mail,
: which our Corporate IT doesn't seem to be able to configure
: to simply get '' quoted mail reply to work. So, sorry for my
: posting style. I'd love to have it the way you want it...
:
You, or
$Bill Luebkert wrote:
I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette. You
top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
those big header boxes you added.
Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? I view
my email with a preview box
$Bill Luebkert wrote:
I appreciate your support, but not your posting etiquette. You
top-posted and didn't remove extraneous text/sig - not to mention
those big header boxes you added.
Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting? I
view
my email with a preview box sorted
Neither is better as far as I'm concerned. If I'm interleaving my reply
with the old message I go on the bottom. If it's just adding info/comments
I put it on top with just a few lines quoted for context. If a direct reply
to the quoted text, then on the bottom.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE
Chris Wagner wrote:
Neither is better as far as I'm concerned. If I'm interleaving my
reply with the old message I go on the bottom. If it's just adding
info/comments I put it on top with just a few lines quoted for
context. If a direct reply to the quoted text, then on the bottom.
I think
Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) wrote:
: Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top
: posting?
First, let's define what Bottom Posting and Top Posting are.
Top Posting involves leaving the existing message whole
and intact and posting your reply above that quoted
And for the top posters:
Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.
Sorry. That should be edited, not audited.
Charles K. Clarkson wrote:
: Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) wrote:
:
: : Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top
: : posting?
:
: First, let's define
Charles K. Clarkson wrote:
:
: Then it is convenient for you to go to the previous message
: should this poster have edited the original Madge too much.
Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.
: Bottom posting does not just mean the reply is on the bottom.
: Like my reply here,
At 12:25 PM 4/4/05 -0700, jeff griffiths wrote:
I like the idea of pre-pending a tag to the subject though, and we do
this a lot with other lists ( Komodo-discuss being the one that comes to
mind ). Are there any strong objections to this?
I think that's a bad idea. I've been on other lists
-Original Message-
From: Charles K. Clarkson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 4/4/2005 12:55 PM
To: 'perl-win32-users'
Cc:
Subject:RE: [OT] Spam to list
And for the top posters:
Grrr. That should be message, not Madge.
Sorry. That should be edited
At 02:43 PM 4/4/05 -0500, Charles K. Clarkson wrote:
Old people, like me, have participated in this particular
thread for years. I remember discussing top posting on Fido-Net,
long before the internet was popular. For the most part, younger
emailers tend to like top posting while older mailers
Chris Wagner wrote:
Ah Fido-net! Yeah those were the days when netiquette evolved. Because
back then we were all on dial up connections, slow ones, and it mattered if
u cut out irrelevant text or not. Now people take bandwidth and drive space
for granted. These damn whipper snappers... ;)
Conrad, Bill (ThomasTech) wrote:
Can some one explain why bottom posting is preferred to top posting?
As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as bottom posting. It's
really interspersed replies (bottom posting would imply that all of your
reply text would go at the bottom and that's
:Re: [OT] Spam to list
|
|
|
| Classification
-win32-users'
perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.com
|
| cc: (bcc: Gerhard Petrowitsch/STN/SC/PHILIPS)
|
| Subject:Re: [OT] Spam to list
- Original Message -
From: Lyle Kopnicky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm all for putting the sender's address in the From header and the list
address in the Reply-To header. That's how it works on most every list
I'm on, and it works great.
Agreed. And I think this is the crux of the problem.
Paul Rogers wrote:
$Bill: I don't think Chris was suggesting removing the poster's email
altogether. That would surely be counter-productive.
Just as long as there is a concise definition of what changes are to be
made so you can anticipate any impact. Then maybe a trial run on an
- Original Message -
From: $Bill Luebkert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I don't get the rejections you speak of, but I do get tons of OOF
replies.
The message I sent with Net::SMTP to this list still triggered the spam
notification from [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I went to the selkirkinc website
It could be that they got spammed sometime by somebody on ur network and now
they flag everything coming from +/- 3 miles of u.
--
REMEMBER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ---= WTC 911 =--
...ne cede males
0100
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
$Bill Luebkert wrote:
Sisyphus wrote:
Hi, Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:
Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email
recipient.
...
At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
/ philosophical / religious
Chris Wagner wrote:
At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection of technical
/
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005, jeff griffiths wrote:
Chris Wagner wrote:
At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails
look like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none
of our lists work this way, and I believe
At 12:02 PM 4/1/05 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address
with that of the list but keep the sender's name. Like Bob
Nope, that doesn't fly. It makes it very hard to reply to the original
sender because their address is lost now.
Not fly?
- Original Message -
From: Chris Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: perl-win32-users perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.com
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Spam to list
It could be that they got spammed sometime by somebody on ur network and
now
they flag
jeff griffiths wrote:
Chris Wagner wrote:
At 10:47 AM 4/1/05 -0800, jeff griffiths wrote:
The one thing we *could* do to mitigate this is to have list emails look
like they come *from* the list, not the poster. Currently none of our
lists work this way, and I believe this is for a collection
Chris Wagner wrote:
At 12:02 PM 4/1/05 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
The best way to do this is to substitute the sender's email address
with that of the list but keep the sender's name. Like Bob
Nope, that doesn't fly. It makes it very hard to reply to the original
sender because their address
I'm all for putting the sender's address in the From header and the list
address in the Reply-To header. That's how it works on most every list
I'm on, and it works great.
Regards,
Lyle Kopnicky
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
At 03:45 PM 4/1/05 -0800, $Bill Luebkert wrote:
That would involve a big hash that converts everyone's pseudoname with the
real thing. Could be a hassle. Switching the To and CC seems easier and
the reply-to header might be even easier (provided it works - we'd have to
test some of the OOFs and
Not I ...
G
-Original Message-
From: Sisyphus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 3/31/2005 5:50 PM
To: perl-win32-users
Cc:
Subject:[OT] Spam to list
Hi,
Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:
Symantec
Sisyphus wrote:
Hi,
Whenever I reply to this list I receive a message from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following subject:
Symantec Mail Security detected that you sent a message containing
prohibited content that is considered spam - please call email recipient.
The body of the email
Obviously they don't like Aussies.
That's not it.
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
Perl-Win32-Users@listserv.ActiveState.com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
- Original Message -
From: $Bill Luebkert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sisyphus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: perl-win32-users perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.com
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Spam to list
Sisyphus wrote:
Hi,
Whenever I reply to this list I
8-
Yep - I still get that notification.
Obviously they don't like Aussies.
Hmmm ... I didn't think there were any Kiwis on this list.
8-
Nope it only targets the $10 poms. $15 poms are left out because they
paid extra (justified by the extra distance the
Ye of little faith...even PERL blesses those of the proper class...[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -To: Sisyphus [EMAIL PROTECTED]From: "$Bill Luebkert" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 03/31/2005 08:15PMcc: perl-win32-users perl-win32-users@listserv.ActiveState.comSubject: Re: [OT]
47 matches
Mail list logo
