Dear Human Being:

This message is being returned to you because it has been classified
as SPAM by my filter. I receive a lot of junk E-Mail these days and
I simply cannot afford to sort it out by myself.

If you think that you have a legitimate reason to contact me, please
re-send your message putting the text "fight spam" (the case is
insignificant) in the subject field. But DO NOT REPLY TO THIS
MESSAGE! If you do it, your message will be silently dropped and
nobody will see it ever again. This is to avoid looped bounces from
non-existent users. I sincerely apologize for all the inconvenience.

Once I have received a "fight spam" message from you, I will add you
to my list of exceptions, so that subsequent messages from you will
not be rejected.

If you are a spammer, then most likely you will hear from me again.
Once a week I run another program which analyzes all rejected e-mail
and generates complaints to your providers, upstream providers of
your providers, providers hosting your web pages (if any), etc.
Needless to say, your chances for actually getting me to subscribe
to your scam or buy your crappy product are less than nil. And
whatever you have to offer is crappy by definition, because you have
resorted to SPAMMING to promote it.

With automatic regards,

RabidFire Spam Killer for "M. Rasit Eskicioglu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar  9 03:53:59 1999
> Received: from mcs.anl.gov ([140.221.9.6]:4979 "HELO antares.mcs.anl.gov" ident: 
>"NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]") by scapa.cs.ualberta.ca with SMTP id <13637-20525>; Tue, 9 Mar 
>1999 03:53:49 -0700
> Received: (from listserv@localhost) by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10)
>       id EAA27687 for latex2html-out; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 04:49:10 -0600
> Received: from macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [137.111.216.12]) 
>by antares.mcs.anl.gov (8.6.10/8.6.10)  with ESMTP
>       id EAA27681 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 04:48:56 -0600
> Received: from hera.mpce.mq.edu.au (hera.mpce.mq.edu.au [137.111.219.13])
>       by macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA01016
>       for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:48:51 +1100 (EST)
> Received: (from ross@localhost)
>       by hera.mpce.mq.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13069
>       for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:48:49 +1100 (EST)
> From: Ross MOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: latex2html: latex2html on MSWin32
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from Thoralf Kauk at "Mar 9, 99 
>07:59:11 am"
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 21:48:49 +1100 (EST)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Orcpt: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > 
> > the new versions of latex2html including version 99.1 beta
> > produce empty html documents  on MSWin32.
> > After tracking down this problem, i found that the the while loop in 
>"slurp_input_and_partition_and_pre_process" calls indirect "do_write_string_out" and 
>this function closes
> > the SINPUT stream.
> > In case of noforking this causes the INPUT stream to be not opened for
> > the next call!
> > 
> > close (SINPUT) unless $NOFORK;
> >  on line 1876 will fix this problem.
>  
> Thanks Thoralf. This is a useful contribution,
> despite the NOSPAM message from "M. Rasit Eskicioglu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> 
> No, it is not forbidden to speak about MSWin32 on this list.  ;-)
> What else could have triggered his RabidFire Spam Killer?  ;-) ;-)
> 
> Rasit owes you an apology; indeed the whole list.
> If he gets this message, I expect that he'll fix the problem...
> 
> ...however if this message spams too...
> 
>  ... then we'll have to contact him separately to fix the problem,
> else have him removed by  owner-latex2html .
> I hope it will not come to that.
> 
> > Thoralf
> > 
> > 
> All the best,
> 
>       Ross Moore
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to