Re: Fw: Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-04 Thread Christopher Booth
Ok I fixed it Have to use company's smtp server, not local sendmail or postfix which would work except that ucmp is blocked at the firewall, so though domain names resolve, they come back as host not found. thanks for all the replies Chris On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 10:05:56 +1100 Christopher Booth

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-04 Thread Christopher Booth
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:06:39 +1100 Christopher Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... or create a webmail server at webmail.slug.org.au and each subscriber gets a web >email account, > eg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > and outside users can post via the web lists or subs

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Jeff Waugh
> > > Answer: Very. It is more trouble than it's worth. > > > > "demine" > > err.. ummm.. "demime" even See above. - Jeff -- "From my observation, when it comes to porting Linux to a particular device, a point doesn't appear to be necessary." - mpt -- SLU

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Scott Howard
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 08:11:38PM +1100, Scott Howard wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:26:37PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > In all seriousness how hard is it for the list maintainer to filter html. > > > > Well, it could be done in postfix header checks, but that would suck. It > > could be

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Scott Howard
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:26:37PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > In all seriousness how hard is it for the list maintainer to filter html. > > Well, it could be done in postfix header checks, but that would suck. It > could be done as part of standard Mailman filtering, but that would mean > we'd

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Scott Howard
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 08:48:05AM +, Central Park wrote: > > >Hey, > >You can get Pine for windows from Washington Uni. > >N > > Like we stated most have to use it not by choice, and since when did pine > support exchange? need i say more.. personally I love pine especially on my > shells

RE: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Central Park
>Hey, >You can get Pine for windows from Washington Uni. >N Like we stated most have to use it not by choice, and since when did pine support exchange? need i say more.. personally I love pine especially on my shells :P _ Get you

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-03 Thread Howard Lowndes
Yes, but surely you can still disable HTML. On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Fox, Michael wrote: > Unfornately not all of us are able to change mailers at work. I know I > can't. I am forced to use this microsoft crap. Even though I do unix support > for the company.. > > - > Michael -- Howard. LANNet Comp

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Mike Holland
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Fox, Michael wrote: > I just checked my settings of my mailer and it has been told explictly to > send in plain text... has it not been doing so? or was your commnets in > reference to someone else whom replied to my posting? No, you are not sending HTML, but you are sending

RE: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread George Vieira
: Monday, 3 December 2001 4:50 PM To: Central Park Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please! Hey, You can get Pine for windows from Washington Uni. N -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Nick Croft
Hey, You can get Pine for windows from Washington Uni. N -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Jon Biddell
Quoting Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > In all seriousness how hard is it for the list maintainer to filter > html. > > Well, it could be done in postfix header checks, but that would suck. It > could be done as part of standard Mailman filtering, but that would mean > we'd have to mod

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Central Park
> > > > In all seriousness how hard is it for the list maintainer to filter >html. > >Well, it could be done in postfix header checks, but that would suck. It >could be done as part of standard Mailman filtering, but that would mean >we'd have to moderate them. > >Answer: Very. It is more trou

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Jeff Waugh
> In all seriousness how hard is it for the list maintainer to filter html. Well, it could be done in postfix header checks, but that would suck. It could be done as part of standard Mailman filtering, but that would mean we'd have to moderate them. Answer: Very. It is more trouble than it's w

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Jon Biddell
Quoting "Fox, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Unfornately not all of us are able to change mailers at work. I know I > can't. I am forced to use this microsoft crap. Even though I do unix > support for the company.. HA !! You think THAT'S crap ? Try using Lotus Notes !!! RRGGG

RE: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Fox, Michael
om my personal domain and redirect it somewhere else.. - mf > -Original Message- > From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:35 PM > To: Fox, Michael > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, pl

Re: FW: [SLUG] One Request, please!

2001-12-02 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Fox, Michael wrote: > Unfornately not all of us are able to change mailers at work. I know I > can't. I am forced to use this microsoft crap. Even though I do unix support > for the company.. But surely you could set it up to be a little less braindead, and to wield it in a c