Daniel wrote:
A Williams wrote:
and the 24 hours was chosen deliberately.
Because ??
Accepting misconfigured timezones, rejecting real fakes.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/lis
A Williams wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Because such an invalid time stamp is proof that the message is spam.
Real people don't keep their computer date and time so far off from
reality.
Well, just at the moment, Paul, you might pick me, as I'm swapping
between Linux and Win
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Because Windows defaults to using *localtime* for the system's
realtime clock and Linux uses UTC. Getting Windows to use UTC is a
bit of a pain, so it is much easier to adjust Linux.
Not m
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Because Windows defaults to using *localtime* for the system's
realtime clock and Linux uses UTC. Getting Windows to use UTC is a
bit of a pain, so it is much easier to adjust Linux.
Not much of a pain here on Wind
Daniel wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Because such an invalid time stamp is proof that the message is spam.
Real people don't keep their computer date and time so far off from
reality.
Well, just at the moment, Paul, you might pick me, as I'm swapping
between Linux and Win7. My clock varies
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Because Windows defaults to using *localtime* for the system's
realtime clock and Linux uses UTC. Getting Windows to use UTC is a bit
of a pain, so it is much easier to adjust Linux.
Not much of a pain here on Windows 7. Right-click the cloc
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Because Windows defaults to using *localtime* for the system's realtime
clock and Linux uses UTC. Getting Windows to use UTC is a bit of a pain,
so it is much easier to adjust Linux.
Not much of a pain here on Windows 7. Right-click the clock at lower
right corner o
Daniel wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Daniel wrote:
A Williams wrote:
Speaking strictly for myself, there are two categories I'd like to
see blocked - the other one being posts where the date is more than
24 hours in the future.
Why?? You could always find out the "real" posting time if y
On 1/8/2018 at 5:57 AM, Daniel created this epitome of digital genius:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Daniel wrote:
A Williams wrote:
Speaking strictly for myself, there are two categories I'd like to
see blocked - the other one being posts where the date is more than
24 hours in the future.
Why
Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Daniel wrote:
A Williams wrote:
Speaking strictly for myself, there are two categories I'd like to
see blocked - the other one being posts where the date is more than
24 hours in the future.
Why?? You could always find out the "real" posting time if you needed
it!
Daniel wrote:
A Williams wrote:
Speaking strictly for myself, there are two categories I'd like to
see blocked - the other one being posts where the date is more than
24 hours in the future.
Why?? You could always find out the "real" posting time if you needed
it!
Because such an invalid t
A Williams wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
rickman wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 12/14/2017 2:30 PM:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a
Daniel wrote:
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
rickman wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 12/14/2017 2:30 PM:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group follo
Paul in Houston, TX wrote:
rickman wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 12/14/2017 2:30 PM:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a differen
rickman wrote:
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 12/14/2017 2:30 PM:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that
Paul B. Gallagher wrote on 12/14/2017 2:30 PM:
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moder
WaltS48 wrote:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
conforman
WaltS48 wrote on 12/14/2017 11:51 AM:
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster f
On 12/14/17 11:46 AM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
conformance to courtesy/p
David E. Ross wrote:
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
conformance to courtesy/productivity issues.
YMMV
Mozilla newsgroups
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> If so, *WHY*?
>
> I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
> Netscape.
>
> On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
> conformance to courtesy/productivity issues.
>
> YMMV
>
Mozilla newsgroups are
Richard Owlett wrote:
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
conformance to courtesy/productivity issues.
YMMV
"following a different fork of Netscape." ... Wow, that's old
On 12/13/2017 3:45 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> If so, *WHY*?
>
> I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
> Netscape.
>
> On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
> conformance to courtesy/productivity issues.
>
> YMMV
>
No, mozilla.support.se
If so, *WHY*?
I ask because I follow a similar group following a different fork of
Netscape.
On that group the moderator chastised a poster for suggesting
conformance to courtesy/productivity issues.
YMMV
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
suppor
24 matches
Mail list logo
