Brad Knowles wrote:
Yeah, but rate-limiting is nothing like having all your e-mail silently
dropped on the floor. At least you're getting something through, and
you usually know something about that fact.
Obviously ... I just mentioned it to show AOL's general perspective towards
people who
On 8/14/08, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
Care to share a picture of how it looks? No retard aoluser was able to
send me a screenshot. Yet.
It differs depending on which version of which client you're running
on which platform.
Is there a specific version you're looking for?
--
Brad Knowles
On 8/14/08, David Gibbs wrote:
Obviously ... I just mentioned it to show AOL's general perspective
towards people who participate in the feedback loop program.
Their attitude towards us is better than their attitude towards the
rest of the effluent. At least we're floating on top.
--
Brad Knowles wrote:
On 8/14/08, David Gibbs wrote:
Obviously ... I just mentioned it to show AOL's general perspective
towards people who participate in the feedback loop program.
Their attitude towards us is better than their attitude towards the
rest of the effluent. At least we're
On 8/14/08, Dragon wrote:
Yes, but being on a shaky, leaky canoe ready to sink or capsize on top of
a cesspool is still not a very nice place to be.
Who said you had the luxury of being in a canoe?
You're swimming in it, buddy.
They're squatting somewhere above you, and you just hope
On 8/12/08, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I think he was suggesting that Mailman could somehow put something like
a rot13 encoded version of the recipient's address into a personalized
list footer to sneak it past AOL's eliding of screen names.
In the ARF reports, I don't think you're going to see
On 8/13/08 1:07 AM, Brad Knowles at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, either way, we're screwed. AOL is determined to delete any and
all data that would actually be useful to us in our jobs, and they
are determined to file all these reports automatically.
So do what I do -- file them
Hi there,
Larry Stone:
Why even receive them at that point? They're little more than spam
themselves so maybe it's time to ban all mail from AOL as AOL will
then be a known spammer. :-(
Because you can always claim you treat their reports seriously. ;)
Actually, when lists are personalized
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Actually, when lists are personalized you can always use Message-ID to
look up your nice AOL citizen. That't what I do as I use full
personalization option.
I'm confused. How do you use the Message-ID for this? Even when
messages are fully personalized, every
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'm confused. How do you use the Message-ID for this? Even when
messages are fully personalized, every recipient's message has the
Message-ID of the original, incoming message.
It may depend on how your MTA is set up. On my lists, there is an internal
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Mark Sapiro wrote:
I'm confused. How do you use the Message-ID for this? Even when
messages are fully personalized, every recipient's message has the
Message-ID of the original, incoming message.
It may depend on
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Larry Stone wrote:
That's not a Message ID, that's a queue ID. And yes, I do the same
thing.
Ah yes, of course you are right.
As you said though -- either way, it works. :-)
==
Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brad Knowles wrote:
So, either way, we're screwed. AOL is determined to delete any and all
data that would actually be useful to us in our jobs, and they are
determined to file all these reports automatically.
And I'm *SURE* they will _never_ consider moving the Report to TOS button away
Mark Sapiro writes:
Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
Actually, when lists are personalized you can always use Message-ID to
look up your nice AOL citizen. That't what I do as I use full
personalization option.
I'm confused. How do you use the Message-ID for this? Even when
messages
But what it really comes down to is that they are arbitrarily throwing
away their customers' mail, and their customers apparently like it
that way.
I would be MORE prone to believe that their customers have absolutely
NO CLUE, Stephan and being aolers don't 'care' enough to complain
(even IF
On 8/13/08, Larry Stone wrote:
Why even receive them at that point? They're little more than spam
themselves so maybe it's time to ban all mail from AOL as AOL will then be a
known spammer. :-(
If you set yourself up to receive them, it's a lot harder for AOL to
automatically mark you as
On 8/13/08, Ed at JustBrits wrote:
I would be MORE prone to believe that their customers have absolutely
NO CLUE, Stephan and being aolers don't 'care' enough to complain
(even IF they know how to) -:)-:)!!
All their customers know is that they are doing everything they can
to make the
So, you make sure they never find out.
LMAO, Brad !
Tnx, NEEDED that !
Ed
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable
Brad Knowles wrote:
If you set yourself up to receive them, it's a lot harder for AOL to
automatically mark you as a spammer.
Actually, in my experience, AOL doesn't give a rats a-- that you are setup for
the feedback loop (at least the old program) ... if they thought you might be a
On 8/13/08, David Gibbs wrote:
Actually, in my experience, AOL doesn't give a rats a-- that you are setup
for the feedback loop (at least the old program) ... if they thought you
might be a spammer they will still rate limit your delivery even if they
send feedback to you.
Yeah, but
* David Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Brad Knowles wrote:
So, either way, we're screwed. AOL is determined to delete any and all
data that would actually be useful to us in our jobs, and they are
determined to file all these reports automatically.
And I'm *SURE* they will _never_ consider
--On Saturday, August 09, 2008 12:16 PM -0500 Robert Braver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the ARF format allows for the inclusion of the entire message
that is the subject of the complaint, AOL will be redacting the
message.
Perhaps the customized part of the message could include the
On 8/12/08, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Perhaps the customized part of the message could include the recipient
in ROT13 or some other easily-reversible obfuscation to elude the redact?
This would obviously require some code support in Mailman to do the
obfuscation.
If you're not AOL management,
Brad Knowles wrote:
On 8/12/08, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Perhaps the customized part of the message could include the recipient
in ROT13 or some other easily-reversible obfuscation to elude the redact?
This would obviously require some code support in Mailman to do the
obfuscation.
If
debian
Linux mnr.niof.net 2.6.24-1-686 #1 SMP Thu May 8 02:16:39 UTC 2008 i686
GNU/Linux
mailman 2.2.11-2
exim4 4.69-6
Before sending out my last mailing (it's an announce list) I set mailman
to do 'full personalization' so I could find out who was hitting the
spam button. The TOS notifications
On Saturday, August 9, 2008, 11:24:42 AM, Rick Pasotto wrote:
RP What exactly is this telling me? Does mailman or exim need to be changed
RP or do I need to do something?
Follow the links for more information that are provided. It's
pretty clear.
You don't really have to do anything. The spam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/2008 12:16 PM, Robert Braver wrote:
| On Saturday, August 9, 2008, 11:24:42 AM, Rick Pasotto wrote:
|
| RP What exactly is this telling me? Does mailman or exim need to be
changed
| RP or do I need to do something?
|
| Follow the links for
On Saturday, August 9, 2008, 1:40:19 PM, Steven Stern wrote:
SS On 08/09/2008 12:16 PM, Robert Braver wrote:
[...]
SS | This means you will have to track down the individual message by
SS | the Message ID in order to identify the email address of the
SS | specific recipient.
SS If you add
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Robert Braver wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2008, 1:40:19 PM, Steven Stern wrote:
SS On 08/09/2008 12:16 PM, Robert Braver wrote:
[...]
SS | This means you will have to track down the individual message by
SS | the Message ID in order to identify
Rick Pasotto wrote:
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 01:49:50PM -0500, Robert Braver wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2008, 1:40:19 PM, Steven Stern wrote:
SS On 08/09/2008 12:16 PM, Robert Braver wrote:
[...]
SS | This means you will have to track down the individual message by
SS | the Message ID
30 matches
Mail list logo
