Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful

Is invoking Microsoft close enough to invoking Hitler to end this
thread? (Hint: "please!").

Keith is right. If you don't like the way the IETF discussion list
comes into your mailbox, start a reflector that fixes it the way you
like it. IETF+censored does more violence to its contents than we're
talking about now, and I wouldn't dream of subscribing without it...

Spencer

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, (continued) Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Mark Allman Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, John Kristoff layering and separation of function, Keith Moore Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Mark Allman Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Valdis . Kletnieks [IETF] Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Gene Gaines Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Bill Strahm Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Keith Moore Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Spencer Dawkins <= Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Iljitsch van Beijnum Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Valdis . Kletnieks Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Keith Moore Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Dean Anderson Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Harald Tveit Alvestrand Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Pekka Savola Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Keith Moore Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Harald Tveit Alvestrand Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Leif Johansson Hashing spam, escom

Previous by Date:	Spam, Bill Cunningham
Next by Date:	Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Previous by Thread:	Re: Adding [ietf] considered harmful, Valdis . Kletnieks
Next by Thread:	Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail, Iljitsch van Beijnum
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]