Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the
true spam ancestors.
It's cost effective is what I mean. But, you don't have to believe me.
From the April 2005 issue of Scientific American --
How about the anti spam Haiku?
http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3
/$
2005/11/20, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
If you call carpet-bombing effective, it is. Retail paper flyers are the
true spam ancestors.
It's cost effective is
On 11/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or
something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the
authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam
much less profitable.
Rod,
I agree with
Le lundi 21 novembre 2005 à 00:04 +0100, Henrik Sundberg a écrit :
How about the anti spam Haiku?
http://www.oblomovka.com/writing/habeas:_the_antispam_haiku.php3
Like SPF it is very popular with spammers.
Micropayements rely on spammers accepting to pay and not subverting
someone else's
Chad Smith wrote:
On 11/20/05, Randomthots [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charging a postage fee of some sort, whether my fee-bate system or
something else, has the side effect of mandating exactly the
authentication mechanisms you desire while simultaneously making spam
much less profitable.
snip
Chad Smith wrote:
Rod,
I agree with you more often than I do with most people on this list, but I'd
have to say I don't on this one.
I don't like this idea, if for no other reason, I don't want to pay for
email. I'm already paying $50 a month for high-speed Internet, there's no
way I'm
Randomthots wrote:
Would you be willing to spend
$0.01 per email? My idea behind the fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a
lot more expensive to send out and reimburse recipients and ISPs for the
A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money
(in any way you'd
of
a nuisance.
Bad move all around
Mel
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: discuss@openoffice.org
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: a more complete office suite
Randomthots wrote:
Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per
Mel Haun Sr wrote:
The only problem I see that makes this a bad move are the Thousands of
legitimate clubs and e-mail groups. This would hurt tham as much or more
than the spammaers. With little or no real gain. We would lose a
wondeful aspect of the Net by the thousands ( like this present
HUGE SNIP
This discussion thread has digressed to the point where it no longer has
anything to do with the original subject! Let's either end it or rename it.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Randomthots wrote:
Would you be willing to spend $0.01 per email? My idea behind the
fee-bate was two-fold: make spam a lot more expensive to send out and
reimburse recipients and ISPs for the
A simpler way to achieve the same result without actually spending money
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Viruses in e-mail are a problem specific to Windows. In fact, I don't
know why they aren't simply called Windows viruses, as that is the only
operating system left for which viruses are seen in the wild on a
regular basis.
Perhaps because people have
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:51:25 -0600
Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML
mail (aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE
to open a goddamned dog-slow word
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even
*begin* to talk about idiots who
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't even
*begin* to
Robin Laing wrote:
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 22:31 -0500, mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail
(aka virus-spreader email), and who REALLY DO NOT WANT to HAVE to open
a goddamned dog-slow word processor to read our email. (We won't
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 11:51 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
Q: Why is spam usually in html format?
A1. Because advertisers like flashy colours. With flashy effects you
don't have to bother about meaningful messages and correct grammar.
A2. Because if spammers understood tech or ethics they
Le jeudi 17 novembre 2005 à 14:11 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit :
That's why websites aren't just plain text. Because pictures, links,
formated text, alignment... All these things aid communication.
Remind me to make you discover Google someday. It's a little-known site
crippled by lack of
In one of GK Chesterton's books - I think it was his biography - he recounts a
politician addressing a crowd that had got noisy and boisterous and jeered
him:
Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen! I have not yet finished casting my pearls!
[before swine, of course. The crowd burst out laughing.]
I think it is high time to close this thread. There is significantly
more childish taunting than real content at this point.
SJK
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?
Having downloaded the 260+ MB source code
Wesley Parish wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:46, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?
Having downloaded the
I, too, tried to look at tradeclient again, but don't run any of the
supported platforms anymore. It may be time to dust it off and bring it
up to date, many people have realized the mistake in getting caught in MS
Outlook / Exchange / AD and are looking for a way back out.
-Lars
Lars Nooden
Jonathon Blake wrote:
Rod wrote:
Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO.
Is that what you really want?
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?
Randomthots wrote:
mark wrote:
*
There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate
html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the attachment
to e-mail paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file format lock-in.
Consider that html is actually a
Randomthots wrote:
Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML.
HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
like ODF.
I shudder a the number of
Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 16:58 -0500, Chad Smith a écrit :
On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET
Quoting Robin Laing [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Randomthots wrote:
mark wrote:
*
There's an aspect to all this that I believe a lot of people who hate
html-mail, such as yourself, are missing. I believe that the
attachment
to e-mail paradigm actually serves to fortify the MS file
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Randomthots wrote:
Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML.
HTML is already TOO complex for
Chad Smith wrote:
On 11/14/05, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's why it's rejected by so
many people. Didn't you read what I wrote last day ? Rich mail
acceptance requires a simplified SUBSET of HTML/XHTML, not a SUPERSET
like ODF.
I
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Randomthots wrote:
Now consider that ODF is a much richer format than HTML. And being
similar to HTML, there is no technical reason (that I see, anyway) that
the format couldn't be adapted to eventually replace HTML.
HTML is already TOO complex for mail. That's
Randomthots wrote:
People keep demanding that OOo developers drop everything and write
an email client,
I haven't heard anyone *demanding* anything... except you that is.
Demanding that we not even talk about the possibility.
We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that
Daniel Kasak wrote:
We are talking about the possibility. The problem is that you don't like
the answer that you're getting.
I haven't liked your answer, not so much because of the substance, but
because of your condescending attitude.
No. Look at the post I responded to.
The
Le lundi 14 novembre 2005 à 18:04 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
Finally, how may cycles does it take to scan a binary attachment for
viruses? And what are the consequences if the scan fails to reveal a
viral hitchhiker?
Scanning for viruses (virus signature check) is way easier than parsing
Hi Chad,
Chad Smith wrote:
On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
this is what I think. We're all gonna argue and have opinions, and get our
little feelings hurt, and call for each other to be banned from the land of
Open Source because we disagree, and in a few months or a
Sam Stainsby wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote:
I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't
have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's
Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers).
Daniel Kasak wrote:
Stop right there.
You admit that the Windows port of Evolution is progressing slowly. Why
would that be?
Perhaps it's a big task?
Perhaps there aren't many developers on it?
Perhaps it needs more testing?
So. What are we going to do about it?
a) Every many and his
Rod wrote:
Without an email/pim component many will do just that. It's called MSO.
Is that what you really want?
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?
I have yet to hear a call
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jonathon Blake wrote:
Just what functionality does MSO + Outlook offer, that can not be
replicated by using OOo + FireFox + ThunderBird + SunBird + the
appropriate templates?
[...]
+1
Lars Nooden ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Software patents kill innovation and harm all
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 12:21 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
mark wrote:
Think about it: If html-mail is associated with spam -- and I will
gladly stipulate that there is a statistical correlation -- and if 1)
ISPs filter much of that spam as mine does, and if 2) much of the rest
is
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote:
I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't
have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's
Word, Excel and PowerPoint import/export filter (thanks to MS Viewers).
They were also willing
On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also work for an organisation that is unwilling to move away from
Microsoft Office because they feel that they need the calendaring and
meeting arrangement facilities of Outlook, on Windows. Many of them
frequently work offline, so web-based
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:24:27 -0500, William Baric wrote:
I had one of them who was willing to switch to OpenOffice. They didn't
have too much money and they were willing to put up with OpenOffice's
Word, Excel and
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:07:49 -, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think that people that argue that there is no reason to develop a mail
client as part of OpenOffice because there are other mail client
applications available are misguided for two reasons:
Make sure you are
On 11/12/05, Sam Stainsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. This idea that OpenOffice only concentrates on applications that are
not available from other packages is completely bogus. Look at OpenOffice
Draw for example and compare it to packages like Inkscape.
And OOoWriter v AbiWord and OOoBase
On 11/12/05, Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can buy outlook for 100 instead of MSO for 300+ dls, this means you
save 200 per desktop.
Individuals can buy a Retail copy of MSO for $150. Busineses can get it for
cheaper if they buy in volume and/or buy it OEM. As both prices
Chad wrote:
(5) OOo can already do it if you write this macro, hack this code,
download this patch, compile this completely unrelated program, build
this bridge in Perl, and it only works on Linux -- plus it's not gonna
work exactly like you think it should.. (NOTE: #5 is an exaggeration
to
Le jeudi 10 novembre 2005 à 13:24 -0800, jrc a écrit :
Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will
do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly
rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.
Do you really think inline complex HTML will
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
mark wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those
opposing
Chad Smith wrote:
On 11/10/05, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down
our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said NO. Now M$ says
This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck.
Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 01:19 -0600, Randomthots a écrit :
mark wrote:
Someone else wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of
transmitting complex documents most
mark wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those
opposing html-mail.
This, in fact, ain't so. I get, oh, a hundred or hundred and
Randomthots wrote:
mark wrote:
someone else wrote:
The most prevalent means of spreading viruses is through binary
attachments to plain-text e-mail messages. Precisely the manner of
transmitting complex documents most loudly advocated for by those
opposing html-mail.
This, in fact, ain't
Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird will
do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is promptly
rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.
Jim Carter
-
To unsubscribe,
Cut Paste anyone?
jrc wrote:
Please discontinue the refrain that 00o attachments to Thunderbird
will do the trick. Try that on most mail lists! The attachment is
promptly rejected as spam, or is otherwise butchered.
Jim Carter
Why not sending the document as the message text, instead of using attachments?
This is like Copy Paste, but more convenient. And I prefer not to
receive to many attachments anyway. OTOH I like plain text better
anyway.
/$
2005/11/10, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Cut Paste anyone?
jrc
On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut Paste anyone?
You will likely lose formating, or things will shift.
It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of Copy and Paste but you
also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email
program, open a new
Chad Smith wrote:
On 11/10/05, Bill Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut Paste anyone?
You will likely lose formating, or things will shift.
It's also an extra step. Not just the two steps of Copy and Paste but you
also have to select the stuff you want to copy, copy it, open your email
On 11/10/05, mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I don't like suites, anyway. They tried to shove 'em down
our throats in the early nineties, and everyone said NO. Now M$ says
This Is The One And Only True Way. Bugfuck.
Hey, moron, this is a mailing list about
Daniel Kasak a écrit :
The original poster already admitted that he's using Thunderbird. I use
Thunderbird.
Thunderbird can not replace outlook and right now there is no open
source solution that can replace outlook. Sunbird and Chandler are at
very early stage and it will probably takes at
mark wrote:
Then, of course, there's the LARGE number of us who DESPISE HTML mail
(aka virus-spreader email),
While you're certainly free to despise html-mail, I would question the
proposition that html-mail is responsible for spreading viruses. Html is
a textual format like XML, so unless
PLEASE turn *off* your request confirmation in your email tool!
mark unless you *really* *want* 500 confirmations/day
--
Q: What is the ultimate fate of the Univese?
A: We are *so* screwed.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote:
I understand that OpenOffice.org is holy, and perfect, and is not to
be questioned. If something is missing, it *SHOULD* be missing. If
something hogs memory, it *SHOULD* hog
On 2005-11-07, Robbie Darrell Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was
integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office.
I've never used Outlook to any great extent. What sort of integration are
you missing in OOo?
Andrew Brown wrote:
Ian Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 00:53 -0500, Chad Smith wrote:
I understand that OpenOffice.org is holy, and perfect, and is not to
be questioned. If something is missing, it *SHOULD* be missing. If
something hogs
Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703
@nusconsulting.com.au:
OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email
client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to
open an external email program and attach a file.
That's the
Alexandro Colorado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I assume that he want to make OOo mailable as part of the content.
This can be achieve on software such as IBM Workspace. But OOo still
doesn't support an email transfer that will make it's native format
Robbie Darrell Graham wrote:
Daniel Kasak wrote:
Robbie Darrell Graham wrote:
Let me first said I love what is happen in Open office.org. It about
time some one took on Microsoft the right way. But there needs to be
some more work done. I think for some one who works in an office you
need
John Thompson wrote:
On 2005-11-07, Robbie Darrell Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I also use Thunderbird. But I would like to use something that was
integrated into open office like Outlook is in Microsoft Office.
I've never used Outlook to any great extent. What sort of
On 11/8/05, Andrew Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One possible soluton would be to try to integrate OOo with gmail -- which
gives cross-platform email. Complete integration would require an immense
effort to beef up and improve OOo's displays of web pages, which is at
present abysmal. But
Chad wrote:
Google has, from the beginning, stated their goal is to Don't be
evil. And to this point, they aren't.
When you have a chance, start apply Forensic Lingusitic Analysis to
Google's statements.
Doing so will make it patently obvious that they re doing some
nefarious things.
Providing
Andrew Brown wrote:
Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703
@nusconsulting.com.au:
OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email
client from scratch just because people are too lazy or incompetent to
open an external email program and attach
On Wednesday 09 Nov 2005 07:50, Daniel Kasak wrote:
Andrew Brown wrote:
Daniel Kasak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:436FCC9F.9050703
@nusconsulting.com.au:
OpenOffice.org developers have better things to do than write an email
client from scratch just because people are too lazy or
Oh come on, OOo should really have all these things integrated, with a
gimp-like tool as
well, and it's own integrated OS, and a dog agility course designer,
and an integrated
network packet sniffer would be nice, and... :)
Well this is where extensions come in, got the Gimp installed ?
75 matches
Mail list logo
