Hello List,
Two of my recent threads were declared Dead Horses for cause. In at
least one of them, I displayed some impatience, which is my achilles
heel in the Autumn of my years.
Although I had unsubscribed this list and had my photo removed from
the gallery, I feel I owe both Marck and Allie,
MA Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to do
MA your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about
MA how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail with a bayesian
MA filter. I pointed him to a free bayesian filter he could operate
MA locally, knowing
snip
##Go Mike!!## ;-).
Thank you Marck--not to be confused with the Mark to which I replied
somewhat pointedly yet politely earlier this morning.
I wish no-one harm and value my opportunities to express opinions as
fodder for balanced assessment in the virtual assembly of public
comment
huge snip
*IMPORTANT* E-MAIL* let's see. Is that an oxymoron? Yes, it most
certainly is in my household and after more than a decade of promoting
it, encouraging people to use it, and trying to take it seriously, I
have finally decided to step back and look at what it is, what isn't,
what it
Your message was automatically moved for review without being read
because HTML formatting was detected as: %OATTACHMENTS.
It is likely the %OATTACHMENTS macro is at fault here, if the
attachment is actually *attached* and not merely named.
Try removing that and see what happens.
If that was
The reply is using the text area of the HTML. And that is what I need
to stop. Is there any way of specifying the reply template that is used
in the Sorting Office Auto Reply function?
I assume you have navigated to the Actions tab of your filter, and
chosen (Checked) the Auto Reply box found
Hello Mike,
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 11:02:46 [GMT -0400] (which was 16:02 in my
TimeZone) you wrote:
snip entire originating message header
The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the
HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated.
Kindly cease this
Hello Mike,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 11:17:52 AM, you wrote:
The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the
HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated.
I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose
me to even more spam?
It is my
snip
The filtering system you presented, if I remember correctly, rejects
all HTML email out of hand. This seems kinda draconian to me. I'll
bet a lot of those rejections are false positives. POPFile actually
reads the HTML and can correctly distinguish spam-HTML from
non-spam-HTML.
To
Confirmed. :-)))
I'll be the judge of that, thankyouverymuch by watching, and looking at the source.
Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things e-mail
and Internet and to put it mildly, I am absolutely furious over the
recent open post of my home, private and personal
DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message
DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone
DG confirm?
Confirmed. :-)))
You are aware, I sure, spiders exist programmed to ignore such
foolishness as META NAME=robots CONTENT=noindex and all other
silly
While in general I agree with your sentiments about HTML email,
I do make exceptions for HTML newsletters, untrained
family/friends, and the like. In my not-so-limited email
experience I would agree that rejecting *all* HTML seems
draconian. But if it works for you, so be it.
Agreed. So be
MA To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in
MA e-mail is spam.
No, it is not.
Fine. Those who created e-mail, and I was present for that, are
declared the losers, and those who want to send pretty flowers and
silly pink backgrounds with their e-mails (never mind that it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Mike,
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:54:37 GMT -0400 (6/13/2003, 11:54 AM -0600
GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA I am absolutely furious over the recent open post of my home,
MA private and personal e-mail address on this
Before you blow a gasket, take a look:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg57120.html.
This message in the archive included email addresses in the body.
Why don't you have a look and see if you can tell me what they
were?
I cannot see nor determine them. They were hidden by the
Wow. I've been on this list for well over a year now and for the most
part, the tone has been quite friendly.
sarcasmWelcome to the list Mike!/sarcasm
Please, if we're all causing you so much grief, find another e-mail
client and go bother their forum.
Same way everywhere.
Join us, but
So your best bet is to stop posting.
Ah, good! Without a single personal attack, and without a single
defamatory word about TB! This is officially my second unfortunate
invitation to stop posting here. Thanks, so very much.
The view of e-mail with the fuzzy-wuzzy glasses removed is quite
Hello Peter,
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 19:33:02 GMT +0200 (6/13/2003, 12:33 PM -0600
GMT here), you wrote in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things
e-mail
So your best bet is to stop posting.
Agreed.
My, we are collecting a whole list of
The era of 28k modems are over. Get on with it! I could not care less
if a message is 1 kb or 10 kb, or God forbid 1 Mb.
If your logic continues, very soon even the present internet
infrastructure will be inadequate. I have a commercial broadband
account and am unafraid of a 200+ Megabyte
I have stated that while in general I do not like HTML email, but
am willing to make specific exceptions. I have stated that for
that reason, for my purposes I would consider a rejection of
*all* HTML email as draconian. I have stated that classifying all
HTML email as spam does not fit the
correspondents.
If caught by this filter, the following and immediate auto-response is
triggered:
--
This is an auto-reply to your recent e-mail to Mike Apsey.
Your message was automatically deleted without being read because HTML formatting
was detected
snip
I want to understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why,
particularly on my critical accounts.
Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to do
your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about
how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail with a
It's easy to get jaded when you do something for the common
good with little or no return. Trust me, I know.
This is a busy list. Thanks for your comments. Jaded is indeed a good
word for what I was feeling at the time my reply was written. I would
add only that to work as designed, and after
I would *never* trout a fellow moderator. Hardly the done thing! g
Quite a batch of diehard IRC alumni here I see--what with all this
trout-slapping.
--
Regards,
Mike
Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 1
Jan,
JR Are there other personalizing touches besides greeting by
JR name, title, address, etc. that I'm not aware of?
I, for one, do not like everybody I send multiple-copy mail to to also
see the e-mail addresses of everyone else in the mailing, as a matter
of courtesy.
I wish more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sudip,
Thursday, June 27, 2002, 5:15:31 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SP While I'm at it, can anyone reccommend a good HTML editor (with as
SP smaller a foorprint as possible) that I can use to create an
SP occassional HTML messages.
Two
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi List,
All this week, I thought my ISP's mail service was squirrely and
blamed it on the rain. I now discover, by checking with my previous
mail program (Agent 1.91) there is nothing wrong with the server. It's
TB!
I would like to go back to k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike,
Thursday, June 27, 2002, 6:36:14 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA All this week, I thought my ISP's mail service was squirrely and
MA blamed it on the rain. I now discover, by checking with my
MA previous mail program (Agent 1.91)
Januk,
Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 10:45:49 PM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA MUA = TB! v%THEBATVERSION (www.RitLabs.com/the_bat)
MA %WINDOWSPLATFORMNAME
MA %WINDOWSMAJORVERSION.%WINDOWSMINORVERSION.%WINDOWSBUILDNUMBER
MA (%WINDOWSCSDVERSION)
MA DH/DSS PGP Key:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas,
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 2:10:59 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA Quite easy to read with Agent installed and a copy/paste. ROT-13
is,
MA of course, a good over-the-shoulder security feature but that's
it.
TF I don't see it as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas,
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 2:10:59 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA Quite easy to read with Agent installed and a copy/paste. ROT-13
is,
MA of course, a good over-the-shoulder security feature but that's
it.
TF I don't see it as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi List,
As some of you might have seen, I am having some TB! wrapping issues,
which are surely cockpit problems.
Here are my settings:
TB! Wraps at 70
PGP Wraps clear-signed at column 72
Editor/Viewer preferences has only Autowrap checked.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas,
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 2:10:59 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
TF Hello Mike,
TF On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:32:43 -0400 GMT (26/06/02, 08:32 +0700 GMT),
TF Mike Apsey wrote:
MA Quite easy to read with Agent installed and a copy/paste
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 9:48:09 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PP Disable it, unless you _really_ need it for PGP rewrapping texts from other
PP applications than The Bat!. If you do need the wrapping nowhere else but in
PP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter,
Wednesday, June 26, 2002, 9:48:09 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
PP Disable it, unless you _really_ need it for PGP rewrapping texts
PP from other applications than The Bat!. If you do need the wrapping
PP nowhere else but in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
DG,
Saturday, June 22, 2002, 10:59:42 AM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
DRS Sorry. This reply is kind of like closing the barn door after the
DRS horse is out but
DRS Always, ALWAYS, back up your keypairs to floppy or to a backup
DRS
server is fine but please ask. I'll
figure this out (see quote).
- --
Mike Apsey
Tampa
MUA = TB! v1.60q (www.RitLabs.com/the_bat)
Windows 2000 5.0.2195 (Service Pack 2)
PGP DH/DSS Key: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=Key_Request or
PGP DH/DSS Key: http://home.tampabay.rr.com/musings/
It is the cat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Allie,
Saturday, June 22, 2002, 6:09:10 PM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MA I think I saw somewhere in the archive or FAQ how to filter and
MA exclude spam whose Recipient field has been suppressed. Any
MA pointer appreciated.
ACM As your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Hello List!
I have lurked the archive these past few months and thought now that
I'm getting comfy with filters, I'd subscribe and check-in to say
thank you.
I purchased TB! only recently, having migrated from Agent, which was a
primary e-mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Melissa,
Friday, June 21, 2002, 2:40:22 PM, you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MR The key you used to sign your message is:
MR 0x563FD539
MR ...and the key I received from your key request was:
MR 0x4EBD8098
MR oops?
Yes, oops. Sorry. The last one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: MD5
Melissa,
Friday, June 21, 2002, 2:40:22 PM, you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MR 0x563FD539
MR ...and the key I received from your key request was:
MR 0x4EBD8098
MR oops?
Actually oops2. Not the last one above, but the last one I sent. The
first
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick,
Friday, June 21, 2002, 7:58:46 PM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
NA Well, the Key I received is still wrong... it cannot verify your
NA signature: Key ID 0x26C51F27 is the one you sent me, while
NA 0x4EBD8098 is the one you sent Melissa.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nick,
Friday, June 21, 2002, 10:41:48 PM, you wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
NA In Reference to your Posting on Friday, June 21 2002 at 05:24 PM PDT,
My apologies. With help from Melissa I nailed the problem with my
installation of PGP 7.0.3. My
43 matches
Mail list logo
