uhm, what is T-Day??

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "discuss-list"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:03 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Re: New Client Code 2.6


> Happy T-Day!
>
>
> --
> Mike Allen, 4CheapDomains.Net
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.4CheapDomains.Net
> Need Advertising? Try DeerSearch.Com http://www.DeerSearch.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Brody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Eric L. Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:22 PM
> Subject: RE: OT - Re: New Client Code 2.6
>
>
> > Well as long as we are off topic (spam filters)  Ill weigh in here.
> >
> > Yes spam filters on content can be quite useful  I filter all emails
with
> > the following words or phrases in the body of the email  VIAGRA,
> > Animal-sex , 0.00% , mortgate, You've been approved,  I am the widow of
,
> > and work from home.
> >
> >
> > So I would disagree it is possible to determie is something is spam via
> > content..  at least in some cases..
> >
> > Just my two cents..
> > ahhh once in a while I actually get to have some fun on this list..
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate this month and belated to those
> > who celebrated last month..
> >
> >
> > Michael
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, maybe I overdo exclamation points.  As for it tripping off spam
> filters?
> > >  It isn't possible to determine if something is spam via content, and
> you
> > > should
> > > probably rethink it.
> > >
> > > The best way *I* have heard of getting rid of spam is reverse IP
> resolution
> > > and/or checking certain rules that most email routines follow.  this
> gets
> > > rid of cloaked sites, local mail servers off dialup, and several
others.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > >-- Original Message --
> > > >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:52:31 -0500
> > > >From: "Eric L. Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Subject: OT - Re: New Client Code 2.6
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At a certain time, now past, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake
thusly:
> > > >> This is a common problem!  It is caused by TUCOWS naming their file
> wrong,
> > > >> and probably ALSO the mime codes on their and/or your end!  In
answer
> > > to
> > > >> your question, my IE browser has the problem, my netscape one does
> NOT!
> > > >>  On yours it could affect the other one or both.
> > > >>
> > > >> FIRST of all, there is a 50% chance your file is ****NOT****
> corrupted!
> > > >>  Try reading it as a TAR file with NO compression!
> > > >>
> > > >> You probably already figured out the problem from that solution!
> > > >>
> > > >> MIME codes can cause problems.  I had one product set one of my
> browsers
> > > >> up with a routine to download ebk files.  When I tried to download
an
> > > ebk
> > > >> file for ANOTHER product, it was corrupted.  My only easy solution
at
> > > THAT
> > > >> point was to use another browser.  THEN, It worked fine!
> > > >>
> > > >> WHY does this happen?  Somebody got the bright idea that they could
> speed
> > > >> up the internet by having on the fly decompression of files.  Those
> downloads
> > > >> COULD have been pictures on a website!
> > > >>
> > > >> What can TUCOWS do to fix the problem?  Simply give the file a .tgz
> extension!
> > > >>  That will defeat this problem, AND make the format clear to
> everyone!
> > > >>
> > > >> Steve
> > > >
> > > >Did all these crazy exclamation points trip off anyone's SPAMAssassin
> rules?
> > > >
> > > >       ~elh
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Eric L. Howard           e l h @ o u t r e a c h n e t w o r k s . c
o
> > > m
> > >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >www.OutreachNetworks.com
> 313.297.9900
> > >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >JabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                 Advocate of the Theocratic
> Rule
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to