On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 00:45 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 23:57 -0400, John Lauterbach wrote:
I have my messages destroyed twice today. I am replying to a request for
comments on an e-mail with an attached document. The original e-mail also
contains a trademark
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 09:33 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
(And that doesn't just go for Evo - any software that is not
explicitly
stated to be a stable version shouldn't be used for anything that you
aren't willing to loose!)
Or indeed lose (sorry :-)
poc
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 12:57 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 09:33 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
(And that doesn't just go for Evo - any software that is not
explicitly
stated to be a stable version shouldn't be used for anything that you
aren't willing to loose!)
Or
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 13:00 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 12:57 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2014-08-06 at 09:33 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
(And that doesn't just go for Evo - any software that is not
explicitly
stated to be a stable version shouldn't be
I have my messages destroyed twice today. I am replying to a request for
comments on an e-mail with an attached document. The original e-mail also
contains a trademark like graphic from the sender's employer. In both
cases, the message simply disappeared. It is not in Trash. It is not in
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 23:57 -0400, John Lauterbach wrote:
I have my messages destroyed twice today.
One? Some? All?
I am replying to a request for comments on an e-mail with an attached
document. The original e-mail also contains a trademark like graphic
from the sender's employer. In
On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 23:57 -0400, John Lauterbach wrote:
I have my messages destroyed twice today. I am replying to a request for
comments on an e-mail with an attached document. The original e-mail also
contains a trademark like graphic from the sender's employer. In both
cases, the
