.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously inconveniences the user.
--http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:17:58 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2008-08-19 Scott Bennett, persistently sending his mails without
In-Reply-To- or References-headers, thus continually breaking threads
for everyone else, complained:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49
of the listener ports.
What's the output of netstat -ntlp | grep 9050?
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously inconveniences the user.
--http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
this exact same tactic. Silly people.
Please elaborate, because I have no idea what you're referring to? Feel
free to e-mail me in private should this be old news for the rest of the
list.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when it does, it
seriously inconveniences the user.
--http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2004/tn2118.html
to or-talk.
Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
lists.
RFC 1855 does not say any such thing, and it's usually frowned upon on
virtually every mailing list that I frequent. YMMV.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never panic because, when
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:18:50 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers t...@planetcobalt.net
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:14:29 -0600 Jim McClanahan wrote:
Ah, I see. It is the duplicate messages from you that were
confusing me.
Why duplicate
post on or-talk means I am subscribed to
or-talk.
Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
^^^
What about it?
Had you taken an actual look at RFC 1855 you wouldn't have to ask.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
The Mac OS X kernel should never
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:38 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
On 2009-06-30 Scott Bennett wrote:
Just standard netiquette for followups to messages posted on mailing
^^^
What about it?
Had you taken
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:06:52 +0200 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
On 2009-07-01 Scott Bennett wrote:
Once again your presumption is mistaken. I had indeed read that
gloriously opaque stretch of text, though it has been a while since I
last suffered through
as a question, namely:
If we are not to use GMail, what mail service should we instead use?
Gee, I wonder how people e-mailed before Google created GMail ...
*shakes head*
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available.
--Jason
we
now stop beating the dead horse? Thank you.
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available.
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercookie
Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches
becoming available.
--Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
***
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majord...@torproject.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
