the old saying has never been more true than today . . . "there's
nothing more dangerous than a little bit of knowledge."
On Apr 22, 9:31 am, Richard Gerome wrote:
> That's probably what he is doing, I have a friend when he wants to fwd an
> e-mail he ends up sending it to everyone in his a
That's probably what he is doing, I have a friend when he wants to fwd an
e-mail he ends up sending it to everyone in his address book, some people get
really mad about what he is sending... I had to show him how to go through his
whole address book and just click on the people who he thinks
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:20 PM, JOHN CARMONNE wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:11 PM, cad wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:03 PM, JOHN CARMONNE wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, nestamicky wrote:
On 4/21/2010 3:18 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
I simply make a new Mail rule that any e-mail
On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:20 PM, JOHN CARMONNE wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that I can stop mail that I've already
sent via Apple Mail?
Of course! All it takes is the Thiotimoline plug-in from Tachyon Corp.
8-P
--
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Te
On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:11 PM, cad wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:03 PM, JOHN CARMONNE wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, nestamicky wrote:
On 4/21/2010 3:18 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
I simply make a new Mail rule that any e-mail from that poster,
John Musbach in this case, autom
On Apr 21, 2010, at 6:03 PM, JOHN CARMONNE wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, nestamicky wrote:
On 4/21/2010 3:18 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
I simply make a new Mail rule that any e-mail from that poster,
John Musbach in this case, automatically is deleted. End of problem,
WOW! T
On Apr 21, 2010, at 2:55 PM, nestamicky wrote:
On 4/21/2010 3:18 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
I simply make a new Mail rule that any e-mail from that poster,
John Musbach in this case, automatically is deleted. End of problem,
WOW! This is getting nasty. Should we close the group for a
On 4/21/2010 3:18 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
I simply make a new Mail rule that any e-mail from that poster, John
Musbach in this case, automatically is deleted. End of problem,
WOW! This is getting nasty. Should we close the group for a couple of
days to calm nerves down?
--
You rece
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Jim Scott wrote:
> There are several LEM posters who have succeeded in abusing my hospitality,
> as well as LEM rules, with posts such as this one about politics. I don't
> depend on nannies or whatever they're called these days. I simply make a new
> Mail rule th
There are several LEM posters who have succeeded in abusing my hospitality, as
well as LEM rules, with posts such as this one about politics. I don't depend
on nannies or whatever they're called these days. I simply make a new Mail rule
that any e-mail from that poster, John Musbach in this case
I guess the Nanny is away.
So how about we just let this thread die.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Dennis Myhand wrote:
> John Musbach wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: kathaksung
>> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> Subject: Re: Iran war plot
>> T
I had ours cut way down, but I keep it a little more open now, got to watch it,
don't want to miss any potential clients.
only downside to spam is sifting through all the crap in the SMTP logs when we
encounter an issue with the server. Thankfully that's rare.
>
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:14 PM,
On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:14 PM, Dan wrote:
> At 1:07 PM -0500 1/28/2010, John Musbach wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Paul wrote:
>>> The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
>>> still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
>>> Manage
On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Dan wrote:
Oh noes, it's also still present in all the mirrored archives as well
whatever will we do?!
Spam is going to crush us all.
Not all of us. 8-P
I see a handful of spams a day. (a quick check of my Junk folder shows
that I've gotten one all day)
Of
At 1:07 PM -0500 1/28/2010, John Musbach wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Paul wrote:
The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
Managers is to spew scolding flames at well-intentioned mem
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Paul wrote:
> The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
> still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
> Managers is to spew scolding flames at well-intentioned members,
> rather than doing useful things like rem
Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Paul wrote:
The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
Managers is to spew scolding flames at well-intentioned members,
rather than doing useful th
On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Paul wrote:
The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
Managers is to spew scolding flames at well-intentioned members,
rather than doing useful things like removing spa
The offending thread containing the spam (entitled "[no subject]") is
still there. This gives the appearance that the main purpose of Group
Managers is to spew scolding flames at well-intentioned members,
rather than doing useful things like removing spam.
--
You received this message because you
On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote:
appropriate action needed.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM, James Magallanes > wrote:
Please be reminded that Group Managers (formerly List Nannies) read
every Group message. Action was taken within minutes after the
appearan
appropriate action needed.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:49 AM, James Magallanes wrote:
>
> http://sexyant.webs.com?68ht
> _
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct
At 4:08 PM -0700 6/16/2009, Fabian Fang wrote:
>
>As quoted above, once again, the List Owner declared sixteen months
>ago that "top post vs bottom post" was no longer an issue for any LEM
>List, and Nannies were not to hassle members any more. So why are we
>posting about one hundred messages
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Fabian Fang wrote:
>
> All of us have always been free to respond or not to others' messages,
> free to archive or delete others' messages, free to like or dislike
> other members, free to suck up or not to the few "hotshots," and free
> to hate or love list nanni
On Jun 16, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Esther Blodgett wrote:
> Please take me off this list. you are filling up my email.
>
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Dan Knight wrote:
>
> As I posted to every list on Feb. 15, 2008:
>
> After discussion with the other list managers, we've decided to end
> our polic
24 matches
Mail list logo
