Re[7]: 1.44

Hello tracer, t> But I donot agree having to go into the registry to change it. t> There IS an administrators menu somewhere anyway, why not add this to t> it? The problem is that a single "stupid" user on a single machine (i.e. without administrator) should not have easy access to this feature.

Re: 1.44

Hello tracer, On Mon, 29 May 2000 08:09:58 +0700GMT (29/05/2000, 09:09 +0800GMT), tracer wrote: t> But I donot agree having to go into the registry to change it. t> There IS an administrators menu somewhere anyway, why not add this to t> it? I second that. -- Cheers, Thomas. Message reply c

Re: filtering on Sender includes Return-Path:

Hello SyP, On Sun, 28 May 2000 23:01:20 +0200GMT (29/05/2000, 05:01 +0800GMT), SyP wrote: > "At least English is better than Chinese. Ever try spelling in Chinese > over the telephone? Ideogrammic languages have REAL problems." > > (from a Slashdot post) Whoever wrote this does not know the ba

Re[6]: 1.44

Hello Marek Mikus, On Sun, 28 May 2000 19:14:31 +0200 GMT your local time, which was Monday, May 29, 2000, 12:14:31 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Marek Mikus wrote: > Hello all, > Sunday, May 28, 2000, MaXxX wrote: >> I wholeheartedly agree. >> Placing some configuration options in the registry

Re[2]: 1.44

Hello Allie Martin, On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:02:50 -0500 GMT your local time, which was Sunday, May 28, 2000, 11:02:50 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Allie Martin wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2000 08:42:58 -0700, Nick Andriash wrote: NA>> I've checked my Registry, and all I can see is the following two

Re: filtering on Sender includes Return-Path:

Morning SyP, > Is it normal that filtering on Sender includes the Return-Path field? > Shouldn't it just use From:, or perhaps Reply-To? Yes, I find this weird too. If you want only a specific header field to be relevant, a workaround might be filtering in kludges by the string From: SyP <[