On 2018-05-23, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> can someone explain to me why the mailing list (spam free) is not used by
> everybody?
1) I perfer the user-interface offered by my NNTP client (slrn).
2) I don't want to archive many years worth of dozens of mailing
On Wednesday 23 May 2018 11:20:34 Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> can someone explain to me why the mailing list (spam free) is not used
> by everybody?
>
> Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
> https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
Brain damaged by facebook, AOL, M$, Google, yahoo yadda yadda into
thinking
can someone explain to me why the mailing list (spam free) is not used by
everybody?
Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
https://github.com/Abdur-rahmaanJ
>
>
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2018-05-23 10:00:56 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 08:01:35 +0200, dieter declaimed
> the following:
>
> >Maybe something went wrong with the integration of your NTTP server
> >with the Gmane one?
>
> GMANE doesn't (to my knowledge) peer to
"Peter J. Holzer" writes:
> ...
> I didn't read on Gmane. I read on my usenet server. But the broken
> messages were all coming from Gmane.
I am reading with an NNTP client connected to the Gmane NNTP server and
and threading works - with very rare exceptions.
The exeptions
On 2018-05-22, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> I didn't read on Gmane. I read on my usenet server. But the broken
> messages were all coming from Gmane. It is possible that the breakage
> only occurs when Gmane passes the message to other Usenet servers,
> although I have no idea how
On 2018-05-22 20:42:43 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2018-05-22, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > On 2018-05-21 15:42:28 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> I switched from Usenet to Gmane mainly because references headers are
> >> bit more consistent on Gmane, so threading works
On 2018-05-22, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2018-05-21 15:42:28 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> I switched from Usenet to Gmane mainly because references headers are
>> bit more consistent on Gmane, so threading works somewhat better.
>
> This is interesting, because Gmane was
On 2018-05-21 15:42:28 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I switched from Usenet to Gmane mainly because references headers are
> bit more consistent on Gmane, so threading works somewhat better.
This is interesting, because Gmane was the reason I switched from
reading on usenet to reading the
t may be
>> that destroying comp.lang.python is their actual objective.
>>
>> Either way, a depressing state of affairs.
>
> The sad thing is, that your post is unseen, because of spam :S
>
> I also almost stopped reading c.l.python, because of enormous spam
> leve
On 2018-05-21, José María Mateos <ch...@rinzewind.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:00:41AM +0200, m wrote:
>> I also almost stopped reading c.l.python, because of enormous spam
>> levels. Do I have any option to read it without spam, other than launch
>> my own f
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:00:41AM +0200, m wrote:
> I also almost stopped reading c.l.python, because of enormous spam
> levels. Do I have any option to read it without spam, other than launch
> my own filtering NNTP server and do whack the mole game for myself?
>
> Ma
their actual objective.
>
> Either way, a depressing state of affairs.
The sad thing is, that your post is unseen, because of spam :S
I also almost stopped reading c.l.python, because of enormous spam
levels. Do I have any option to read it without spam, other than launch
my own filtering
I've been reading a limited range of Usenet groups since the late 1980s,
and until the recent problems in comp.lang.python had never bothered with
any sort of filtering; it's easier just to ignore people. However, the
sheer volume of spam in comp.lang.python finally defeated me, so I set up
a
14 matches
Mail list logo