RE: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-11 Thread Chris Santerre
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules > -Original Message- > From: Duncan Findlay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:38 AM > To: Dan Horne > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Rulesemporium rules > > > On Tue, Oct 1

Re: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 04:43:58PM -0400, Dan Horne wrote: > >> 10) Making top ten lists. > Hilarious. Can I subscribe to those top ten lists with RDJ? Are they going to be licensed with the Apache license? /me ducks -- Duncan Findlay pgpbI5yKn40MO.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread jdow
Give Chris a break - sometimes we ALL just feel silly and have to vent. {^_-} - Original Message - From: "Joe Zitnik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A simple no would have sufficed. On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Z

Re: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Loren Wilton
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why the updates on the rulesmporium rules have dropped so drastically lately? I understand that the authors all have other things to do, and I am EXTREMELY GRATEFUL for all their hard work. I was just wondering if there were any other reasons. Nope, tha

Re: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread DAve
Joe Zitnik wrote: A simple no would have sufficed. But I so enjoyed the answer. What was the question again? DAve On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -Original Message- From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:

RE: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Dan Horne
>> 10) Making top ten lists. Hilarious. Can I subscribe to those top ten lists with RDJ? CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, u

RE: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Chris Santerre
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules > > > Joe Zitnik wrote: > > A simple no would have sufficed. > > It wouldn't have been as amusing though :) LOL, Joe don't get upset. You obviously haven't seen enough of my posts to know what I'm like. :) We

Re: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Michele Neylon:: Blacknight.ie
Joe Zitnik wrote: > A simple no would have sufficed. It wouldn't have been as amusing though :) -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Quality Business Hosting & Colocation http://www.blacknight.ie/ Tel. 1850 927 280 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 59

RE: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Joe Zitnik
A simple no would have sufficed. >>> On 10/10/2006 at 4:25 PM, Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:39 PM >> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org >> Subject: Rulesemporium rules

RE: Rulesemporium rules

2006-10-10 Thread Chris Santerre
Title: RE: Rulesemporium rules > -Original Message- > From: Joe Zitnik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:39 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Rulesemporium rules > > > Just out of curiosity, is there a reaso