Wow, "corporate-required Internet Explorer"! Your company needs to
review some of it's standards!!
On 2020-06-15 12:30 PM, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote:
corporate-required Internet Explorer
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff
And WP still exists and is still thriving, AFAICT. I run WP X8 on my home
machines, and version X9 is out since last year. I just haven't upgraded yet.
Use WP reveal codes on any reasonably complex MS document to see just what kind
of cr*p is generated. It takes a long time to clean up the
And if you try to access that link with a corporate-required Internet Explorer
browser, you will be told that Mattermost doesn't support your outdated
browser, and you should change to one of the new more modern ones you doofus.
Not what I would call "friendly".
Peter
-Original
Lionel B Dyck wrote:
>Check this out - looks new but promising
>https://mainframe.community/
Just what we need: Yet another nascent mainframe forum that will die on the
vine. Not that community is a bad thing, it's not-but
moving it from this list has been tried repeatedly: mainframezone,
On 14 Jun 2020 14:55:45 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:<0385558663798702.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>)
000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu (Paul
Gilmartin) wrote:
G4> A security jock should treat an access query with a
negative reply as a violation as
+1
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 10:48 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Quote style (was: ... Passive FTP ... )
As a Californian, I have a special
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:51:25 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote:
>
>B5> Ok, so things change; I still don't see why that means one shouldn't ask.
>How is partial information (that is, it'll work under most circumstances but
>not under all) worse than no information at all? One can't be sure that the
Further comments below.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Bridges [mailto:robhbrid...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 23:32
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020
I remember that! It was fun to add a line in the middle of a group
email (that ended up way too long) such as, "If you got this far come to
my desk for a free coke". A few minutes later Stuart (and only Stuart)
would arrive at my desk demanding payment.
On 6/14/2020 12:19 PM, Stuart Holland
> As a Californian, I have a special affection for gold miners.
I'll bet Sutton didn't.
What you call crap is what Netiquette, e.g.,
http://www.kassj.com/netiquette/netiquette.html, calls proper quoting style.
Top posting a reply to a long message completely loses context.
--
Shmuel
Tom would sometimes send long notes, and occasionally put something in
the middle to see if anyone actually read it. I would usually be the
first (or only) person to respond to whatever he stuck there. So Tom:
the recent "Where's Waldo?" pictures I have seen have him standing
pretty much by
As a Californian, I have a special affection for gold miners. The older I get,
the more I resemble the dusty old sourdough who ventures into town periodically
to replenish his supply of flour and grease.
Most of the time his labor produces nothing, but he has to dig anyway just in
case. I
> In this thread contributors have asserted that netiquette was
> intended for USENET rather than person-to-person email.
Yes, but the assertion was bogus. Look at, e.g., RFC 1895 Netiquette Guidelines.
> Am I a Luddite for eschewing HTML coloring
No. Not all change is progress. For the last
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 21:42:00 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:
>...
>Notice how you can clearly see what was your comment, and how my
>responses directly relate to parts of your comment?
>
But only if your MUA distingushes quoted material. Am I a Luddite for
eschewing HTML coloring (and even
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 23:32:02 -0400, Bob Bridges wrote:
>
>o Well, maybe not on the first one: What's "TOCTTOU"?
>
GIYF. It's my habit to verify initialisms before I use them.
>o Access rules are indeed complicated to simulate.
> ...
>o Of course the rules are subject to change. I can't
I used to call it Word Pervert before I was forced to use m$ orifice. I tend to
use lists a lot, and what happens when you try to copy items from one list to
another is not pretty. Reveal mode would at least have given me an easy way to
clean up the mess. These days, if I have to copy list
On 13 Jun 2020 21:45:00 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:)
dspiegel...@hotmail.com (David Spiegel) wrote:
I am aware of CBT 106. I presented my solution in case the
user wanted to know if s/he had access.
If so, s/he could avoid all of the paperwork and
permission required to
17 matches
Mail list logo
