On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Peter Firminger wrote:
> > The source of the old post is,
> > Tim [deleted]
My sincerest apology to Tim. A very bad choice of words on my part, I did
not mean to convey the impression that Tim was directly responsible, only
that he was being used as a possible source for sp
> The source of the old post is,
> Tim [deleted]
>
Yeah that was Tim's message that was resent. He is definitely not the
problem.
> Check the header of the post previous to the repeat of Russ's post.
Yep, it's Russ' address
>
> I wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is the work of
> a sp
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Peter Firminger wrote:
> They seem to be emanating from a bt.com smtp server.
>
> Any ideas BT members?
>
> Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151] by mail.webboy.net with
> SMTP;
>Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:34:52 +1100
The source of
They seem to be emanating from a bt.com smtp server.
Any ideas BT members?
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151] by mail.webboy.net with
SMTP;
Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:34:52 +1100
Peter
*
The discussio
