On 4/05/2016 11:55 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
Why did you post with this option ? This is a stupid option, because
people answering without this option and without quoting your text
post a message who have no sense if your message have been
disappeared ...
It affords
Ray_Net wrote:
Why did you post with this option ? This is a stupid option, because
people answering without this option and without quoting your text
post a message who have no sense if your message have been
disappeared ...
It affords one an opportunity to practice zen...what is the
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote on 04/05/2016 13:12:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 01:19:21 +0300, Stanimir Stamenkov
wrote:
Mon, 02 May 2016 06:07:59 -0500, /Thee Chicago Wolf/ (MVP):
On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:14:29 +0200, Petr Voralek wrote:
This happens to me for the majority of
Stanimir Stamenkov composed on 2016-05-04 01:19 (UTC+0300):
Mon, 02 May 2016 06:07:59 -0500, /Thee Chicago Wolf/ (MVP):
I don't think X-No-archive is the issue. I don't think a single Usenet
provider honors that.
Believe it or not this is the most probable cause as I'm observing
the same
Mon, 02 May 2016 06:07:59 -0500, /Thee Chicago Wolf/ (MVP):
On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:14:29 +0200, Petr Voralek wrote:
This happens to me for the majority of posts from OP on newsgroup. I
always assumed that the reason is "X-No-Archive: yes" in his posts and I
kept it did not deal with...
I
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote on 02/05/2016 13:07:
On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:14:29 +0200, Petr Voralek
wrote:
Hello!
On Sunday, 01.05.2016 23:35(+0200) *Paul B. Gallagher* wrote, and I
quote (in part):
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
...about SM 2.43 but they keep
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2016 07:14:29 +0200, Petr Voralek
wrote:
This happens to me for the majority of posts from OP on newsgroup. I
always assumed that the reason is "X-No-Archive: yes" in his posts and I
kept it did not deal with...
I don't
Hello!
On Sunday, 01.05.2016 23:35(+0200) *Paul B. Gallagher* wrote, and I
quote (in part):
> Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
>> ...about SM 2.43 but they keep disappearing and not making it through.
> I've been seeing them as "expired." Wonder who's purging them and why.
This happens to
On 5/1/2016 4:23 PM, EE wrote:
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
...about SM 2.43 but they keep disappearing and not making it
through.
Hmm.
Could the fact that you have no email address set up (real or
fake) be the problem?
Probably not.
He has been using .@. as an address since at least
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
...about SM 2.43 but they keep disappearing and not making it through.
Hmm.
I've been seeing them as "expired." Wonder who's purging them and why.
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) wrote:
...about SM 2.43 but they keep disappearing and not making it through.
Hmm.
Could the fact that you have no email address set up (real or fake) be
the problem?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
11 matches
Mail list logo