A message posted in ADULTRPGs yesterday gave all games without gratuitous sexual content three days notice to quit, with our only alternative being to move to one section of the overcrowded static-ridden GAMERS forum, run by the same dishonest and paranoid management. Several of the forum sysops have resigned. I expect more of them to follow suit. This is a sad day. For the kalyr-based game I've been running there, I have told my players I'm transferring to the kalyr list over here. Unfortunately I've got a couple of players who are hostile to the PBeM format and are threatening to leave the game if I transfer it away from Compuserve. Any suggestions as to how I can persuade them? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: TH>Unfortunately I've got a couple of players who are hostile to the PBeM TH>format and are threatening to leave the game if I transfer it away TH>from Compuserve. What are the current forums? Web-based? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
Karen wrote: >What are the current forums? Web-based? Yes and no. There is a web-based interface, but most message gamers use assorted third-party off-line readers using Compu$erve's proprietary HMI interface. These OLRs all have one thing in common, they thread messages, which mean most message game threads don't need to contain any quoted text from previous messages. One player in particular was a lurker at one time on the Kalyr list, and claims she had a 'miserable time' following it. I find Forte Agent threads messages well enough most of the time; but there's always the odd player that insists on forwarding rather than replying, and breaks the threads. This is turning into one stressful weekend..... BTW, if anyone's interested, I have put yesterday's official announcement on the front page of my web site, www.kalyr.com -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: TH>These OLRs all have one thing in common, they thread messages, which TH>mean most message game threads don't need to contain any quoted text TH>from previous messages. TH>One player in particular was a lurker at one time on the Kalyr list, TH>and claims she had a 'miserable time' following it. That may have changed since the headers in group messages got fixed, as you noticed awhile back. Depends on her mailreader and the one used by the participants. TH>I find Forte Agent threads messages well enough most of the time; but TH>there's always the odd player that insists on forwarding rather than TH>replying, and breaks the threads. Well, but that could happen with any OLR if someone decides to start a new message instead of a reply. Of course, there are always those who use mailreaders that for whatever reason don't include references *even* on a normal reply; that's a problem. If the fundamental problem is that people are using non-standard mailreaders, you could always insist that everyone use Pegasus or something, which will deal with that sort of thing nicely (threads by reference where it can, and subject where it can't, always does the references thing, is free, and so on... you'd have to find an equivalent for Mac and any other platform people might use), and that they don't quote. It's less a software issue than a user discipline issue. (Those, of course, are the hardest to deal with.) Speaking of various mailreaders, I'm going to need some volunteers over on fh_users (http://www.wirebird.com/fh_users/) to write up how-to-set-up- folders, etc., for various mail programs. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000 09:51:42 cdt, you wrote: >That may have changed since the headers in group messages got fixed, as >you noticed awhile back. Depends on her mailreader and the one used by >the participants. This was something like a year ago. There was also that annoying keyword/re: problem, which is also fixed now. >Well, but that could happen with any OLR if someone decides to start a new >message instead of a reply. Of course, there are always those who use >mailreaders that for whatever reason don't include references *even* on a >normal reply; that's a problem. That's a problem with the mail functions some Compuserve OLR programs. (Don't know about CS2000, which is basically AOL rebadged). >If the fundamental problem is that people are using non-standard >mailreaders, you could always insist that everyone use Pegasus or >something, which will deal with that sort of thing nicely (threads by >reference where it can, and subject where it can't, always does the >references thing, is free, and so on... you'd have to find an equivalent >for Mac and any other platform people might use), Of course, my problem player uses a Mac. And you know what some Mac users are like. Don't get me started on cc-mail - ugh! >and that they don't quote. >It's less a software issue than a user discipline issue. (Those, >of course, are the hardest to deal with.) Or at least trim their quotes. I tend to quote a line or two, but no more that that. Some people quote a 50 line message, including screeds of other people's quotes, only to append a couple of lines of their own. I do need to put a stop to that. What does PBeMtools do when it has no quotes? Doesn't that depend on quotes, or does it use references as well? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: > Or at least trim their quotes. I tend to quote a line or two, but no > more that that. Some people quote a 50 line message, including > screeds of other people's quotes, only to append a couple of lines of > their own. I do need to put a stop to that. There's a useful feature for Firehawk, Karen... recognize excessive quoting and trim all but the last three lines of it. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. :) (Especially for the archives... I figure the recent archives are more than fifty-percent quotes.) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>There's a useful feature for Firehawk, Karen... recognize excessive CDC>quoting and trim all but the last three lines of it. I'd buy that in a CDC>heartbeat. :) (Especially for the archives... I figure the recent CDC>archives are more than fifty-percent quotes.) I've considered that, but that would mean processing every message. Which I'm really ending up doing anyway, and could put in the Phoenyx extensions only so it's optional, and... never mind, thinking out loud. I could put in a switch for that. There's already a .sig-stripper (it's built into the Mail::Internet library, and doesn't recognize non-standard .sig delimiters which no one else uses, so I need to use my own that'll recognize all the annoying Yahoo ads) so it wouldn't be much. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
CDC> There's a useful feature for Firehawk, Karen...
CDC> recognize excessive quoting and trim all but the
CDC> last three lines of it.
> I could put in a switch for that.
I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are
just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message
contains multiple quoted bits in multiple styles intersperssed with new
material. I know that there are frequent messages on Usenet that I can't
figure out which parts are quoted or not.
I think you'd end up screwing up messages.
----
Jeff Johnson
jsjohnso@islandnet.com
I tell everyone a different story
that way nothing's ever boring
even when they turn and say you lied
Jane Siberry, "The Walking"
-- --------------------------------------------------------------
Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000 13:54:44 cdt, you wrote: >> I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message contains multiple quoted bits in multiple styles intersperssed with new material. I know that there are frequent messages on Usenet that I can't figure out which parts are quoted or not. << Especially when you consider that the default Compu$erve quoting method is the way I quoted your message above. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: TH>>> I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are TH>just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message TH>contains multiple quoted bits in multiple styles intersperssed with TH>new material. I know that there are frequent messages on Usenet that I TH>can't figure out which parts are quoted or not. << TH> TH>Especially when you consider that the default Compu$erve quoting TH>method is the way I quoted your message above. Also AOL... and fairly easy to detect, actually, espeically so long as there are blank lines fore and aft. The biggest problems are people who *do* try to snip quotes, and end up with: > quoted stuff quoted stuff quoted stuff > quoted stuff quoted stuff And then snipped everything including one too many carriage returns, so the first part of the sentence gets mumbled into the previous quote, probably by an overenthusiastic wordwrapper. 'Course, if you're going to leave the last three lines, it's still there, and no harder to read than it was before anything happened to it. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Jeff Johnson wrote: JJ>I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are JJ>just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message JJ>contains multiple quoted bits in multiple styles intersperssed with new JJ>material. I know that there are frequent messages on Usenet that I can't JJ>figure out which parts are quoted or not. JJ> JJ>I think you'd end up screwing up messages. More likely, I'd end up letting too much through, since it'd be fairly conservative. But I'm thinking that that would still curb 99% of the issues, since if people don't *see* overquoting as often, they're less likely to assume it's the Right Thing. The rest of the cases can be handled with a clue-by-four. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Jeff Johnson wrote: > I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are > just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message But *most* software quotes the same way... while you couldn't filter for all quoting styles, you could catch the majority. The ones that get me are those that don't use any quoting indicators... they just indent their replies. Drives me buggy. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sun, 7 May 2000 13:22:57 cdt, you wrote: >The ones that get me are those that don't use any quoting >indicators... they just indent their replies. Drives me buggy Doesn't Outlook do something icky like that? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: > Doesn't Outlook do something icky like that? Yeah. If you happen to *use* Outlook in the office, quoted text is black and new text is blue. These things get lost when the mail is sent onto the Internet. Microsoft is probably the worst thing that has happened to Internet email. They ignore and violate long-standing standards left and right to establish their products' uniqueness and implement features that only work if you're using Microsoft products at both ends, and people use them anyway. And on top of that, they can't even make decent mail clients even when they aren't breaking standards. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
Go bash some other companies. Netscape and Eudora do HTML format email as well, and certainly ignore standards as much as anyone else. Personally, I think MS is the best thing to happen to Internet email. At least now there are plenty of computers that typical people can use email on. I'm happy with Outlook 98, and like it better than any of the other clients I've used - and I've used pretty much all of them. ---- Jeff Johnson jsjohnso@islandnet.com Often, when I am reading a good book, I stop and thank my teacher. That is, I used to, until she got an unlisted number. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jeff Johnson wrote: JJ>Go bash some other companies. Netscape and Eudora do HTML format email JJ>as well, and certainly ignore standards as much as anyone else. I dunno about that... if you look at the Phoenyx code, most of the exception processing is for Microsoft clients. 'Course, that's not so much "ignoring standards" as it is, "adding goofy things to email that only other MS clients care about," which is not quite the same thing, I suppose. But left to its own devices, an MS client tends to fill up the /files directory with useless critters, and it's not always easy (there being umpteen-hundred flavors of Outlook *and* Express) to tell someone how to turn them off, or for them to be certain they *have* gotten them turned off. But yeah, they're not the only culprit with HTML mail. Yecch. At least they all tend to adhere to the MIME/multipart standard, which is relatively easy to pare down to plaintext. As long as none of them decide that the least-common-denominator *is* HTML, anyway. Phoenyx can reconstruct plaintext out of HTML if it absolutely has to, but the results may or may not be pretty. Now, if I could figure out how to tell Nick's (non-MS) client to either use only lower-order ASCII or else specify its character-set, he'd stop getting those goofy characters in place of his "'" and whatnot... -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sun, 7 May 2000, Jeff Johnson wrote: > Go bash some other companies. Netscape and Eudora do HTML format email > as well, and certainly ignore standards as much as anyone else. Eudora's rather good about standards, actually. And HTML isn't non-standard if it's encapsulated in MIME. It's just a pain in the butt. The thing about standards is that the user of the client doesn't often see the problems... mail servers and people who receive the mail do. Like the use of color for quoting (which isn't an HTML issue... it's a matter of the client using color for highlighting and then not sending color info at all (which it shouldn't) when sending to the net). Run a mailing list server or work for an ISP for a few years and see how much you like Microsoft's mail products then. > Personally, I think MS is the best thing to happen to Internet email. At > least now there are plenty of computers that typical people can use > email on. I'm happy with Outlook 98, and like it better than any of the > other clients I've used - and I've used pretty much all of them. There aren't any Windows mail clients that do everything I want. They're all lacking, and Outlook was one of the worst in my experience. It didn't do half of what I wanted and what it did do it insisted on doing in weird, non-traditional ways. The only mail clients I've found that were adequate are text-mode... one on DOS, which I used long into my Windows-using days until I switched my current one on Linux. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
In a message dated 5/8/00 8:04:31 AM Central Daylight Time, raven@phoenyx.net writes: << There aren't any Windows mail clients that do everything I want. They're all lacking, and Outlook was one of the worst in my experience. It didn't do half of what I wanted and what it did do it insisted on doing in weird, non-traditional ways. The only mail clients I've found that were adequate are text-mode... one on DOS, which I used long into my Windows-using days until I switched my current one on Linux. >> If standards are violated by microsoft products as a matter of custom - perhaps the microsoft product is BECOMING the standard and it is the old systems which are going the way of the dinosaurs? You can't stop evolution - you can only adapt. If that means trusting your subscribers to a greater degree than you would like - that may be the only alternative. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Mon, 8 May 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote: > If standards are violated by microsoft products as a matter of custom - > perhaps the microsoft product is BECOMING the standard and it is the old > systems which are going the way of the dinosaurs? You can't stop evolution - > you can only adapt. If that means trusting your subscribers to a greater > degree than you would like - that may be the only alternative. That's exactly what Microsoft wants to do; make its methods the standard. But not with a *better* standard, just a Microsoft one. It isn't a matter of evolution, it's a matter of genocide... Microsoft doesn't violate the standards to make things better. They do it either because they don't care about standards (sometimes) or they're intentionally trying to subvert the standard to Microsoft's way of doing things to expand their market. I have never seen this done in a way that really benefitted the computing community. The Microsoft "Halloween" document (an internal document leaked by a MS employee on Halloween, verified by MS themselves as being authentic) outlines these tactics clearly... using their market influence to get away with violating standards to drive standards-following software out of the market by the sheer weight of users who will use MS products without even considering any other vendor. Doesn't have anything to do with trusting subscribers. Has to do with Microsoft intentionally doing things "wrong" so that they're incompatible with standard software, which encourages users to use their software to be compatible with friends and co-workers. It's not just my opinion about how they operate... it's a written record by a MS employee about how they operate. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
> It's not just my opinion about how they operate... it's a > written record by a MS employee about how they operate. A written record by a junior MS employee with absolutely no decision-making power, that proves absolutely nothing. If a US Army lieutenant wrote a proposal for invading Canada, would that prove that this was US policy? I'm completely fed up with software-bashing of any kind, and don't want to see it on this list. If you have something you want listowners to do, say so. Otherwise, I'd prefer you kept quiet. ---- Jeff Johnson jsjohnso@islandnet.com Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
In a message dated 5/8/00 9:28:22 PM Central Daylight Time, raven@phoenyx.net writes: << Doesn't have anything to do with trusting subscribers. Has to do with Microsoft intentionally doing things "wrong" so that they're incompatible with standard software, which encourages users to use their software to be compatible with friends and co-workers. >> I don't challenge the reality of your position - but what are you going to do when Microsoft operates 90% of business and 80% of home computers? Change your standards or see them changed so you are no longer able to operate within "standards" yourself. I don't say it isn't predatory, I just say what are you going to do? -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Mon, 8 May 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/00 9:28:22 PM Central Daylight Time, raven@phoenyx.net > writes: > >> Doesn't have anything to do with trusting subscribers. Has to do with >> Microsoft intentionally doing things "wrong" so that they're >> incompatible with standard software, which encourages users to use >> their software to be compatible with friends and co-workers. > > I don't challenge the reality of your position - but what are you going to do > when Microsoft operates 90% of business and 80% of home computers? Change > your standards or see them changed so you are no longer able to operate > within "standards" yourself. I don't say it isn't predatory, I just say what > are you going to do? Easy, Microsoft OSes and applications (keep in mind, MS does not make *computers*) do not now, nor are they likely to ever, run the majority of the servers on the internet. (As a note on that, when MS bought HotMail, they converted all of the Sun unix-based servers over to Intel machines running NT, along with big press releases about the conversion. Then, a few months later, quietly converted the NT machines to Linux, as NT couldn't handle the job. And this is company that MS ownes.) All that is necessary is that newer versions of the servers begin to enforce a stricter adherence to the standards. Those who insist on using "broken" software (and MS software is truly, in many senses, BROKEN) will find themselves unable to make use of email and the web and most of the rest of internet. It will end up being MS that is forced to change and accept the standards that pre-existed them. It is interesting to note that MS's inability to follow standards applies to their own standards as well as those that originate outside the company. All that you need to look at to see that is an MS DevNet CD and some time play around to find the various incompatible ways the different OS teams decided to "improve" the Win32 specification. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Mon, 8 May 2000, Michael Feldhusen wrote: MF>It is interesting to note that MS's inability to follow standards applies MF>to their own standards as well as those that originate outside the MF>company. All that you need to look at to see that is an MS DevNet CD and MF>some time play around to find the various incompatible ways the different MF>OS teams decided to "improve" the Win32 specification. That right there is what keeps MS from really establishing standards; that and the inability to publish their "standards." MS could probably establish its own RFC-like standards if they just announced them and then stuck to them enough for developers to trust them... they've got the clout, they just don't use it that way.I mostly am willing to accommodate MS users and their quirky software, though I'm drawing the line at their servers. There is apparently a recently-released version of Internet Mail Service drivers for Exchange that has a funky X-MS- header that is blank. Not *just* blank, it isn't followed by a CR/LF. So it acquires the next header, which happens to be the MIME content-type. This results in a message that will happily tell you "This message is MIME-encoded, your mailreader sucks or you wouldn't be seeing this" (well, okay, that's not the exact wording), even in a MIME-aware reader (MS or otherwise, I presume). Now, the Phoenyx' magic bounce detection will normally detect a MIME-encoded report by its content-type, but those sneak in under the radar. So right now I'm bouncing the bounces that look like that, with a "This message is NOT mime-encoded, and your mail server sucks or you wouldn't be getting it back" message (well, okay, that's not the exact wording of that either). I tried to find a patch for it, but I couldn't in a cursory web search. If I find it, I'll put a pointer to it in the bounce-of-bounce message. (Yeah, I'll even do MS admins' *job* for them when I can. Customer service ya us.) (Or maybe I'll just put the patch installation in a VBscript and email it to them...) -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
> There is apparently a recently-released version of Internet Mail > Service drivers for Exchange that has a funky X-MS- header that is > blank. Not *just* blank, it isn't followed by a CR/LF. That's hardly 'ignoring standards', that's a bug. All the other SMTP headers have CRLFs, right? There's a rule that goes something like 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance' which applies here, IMO. I suppose no other companies have ever produced software with bugs. I never mentioned it before because it didn't happen here all that often, but either my tolerance for this sort of kvetching has gone down or there's been more of it lately. Or both. I don't want to see criticism of any software on this list, unless it's directly relevant (like 'here's a workaround for a bug that's affecting us'). I get enough of this sort of thing during the workday. ---- Jeff Johnson jsjohnso@islandnet.com I photocopied a mirror. Now I have two photocopy machines. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Mon, 8 May 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote: > I don't challenge the reality of your position - but what are you going to do > when Microsoft operates 90% of business and 80% of home computers? Change > your standards or see them changed so you are no longer able to operate > within "standards" yourself. I don't say it isn't predatory, I just say what > are you going to do? Continue using the standard-compliant software and bitch about Microsoft. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On 7 May 00, at 16:46, Jeff Johnson wrote: > Personally, I think MS is the best thing to happen to Internet email. > At least now there are plenty of computers that typical people can use > email on. I'm happy with Outlook 98, and like it better than any of > the other clients I've used - and I've used pretty much all of them. "Typical people" is a good thing for Internet email? Am not entirely sure the lowering of thresholds was a good thing. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Jason Knight wrote: JK>"Typical people" is a good thing for Internet email? Am not entirely JK>sure the lowering of thresholds was a good thing. Sometimes I agree... it used to be a Really Cool Thing to be out at a restaurant or something and overhear someone talking about personal computers, or cooler yet, the local BBS scene (coolest of all, of course, was hearing them talk about the Phoenyx). Nowadays, that's par for the course, and everybody and their grandmother has a PC, cablemodem, and dot- com. Ho hum. If roleplaying ever gets that mainstream, I don't know what I'm going to do for a hobby. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
> The ones that get me are those that don't use any quoting > indicators... they just indent their replies. Drives me buggy. That's one. Also, many email programs do quotes with HTML formatting if they're using HTML format, which the Phoenyx then strips out - dunno what you end up with then. I still think this is a social engineering problem, and not one the Phoenyx should bother with. At the least, I'd like it to be 'off' by default. ---- Jeff Johnson jsjohnso@islandnet.com Press any key... no, no, NOT THAT ONE! -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Jeff Johnson wrote: > I strongly doubt you could ever make such a filter reliable. There are > just too many ways of quoting, and it gets very messy when a message > contains multiple quoted bits in multiple styles intersperssed with new > material. I know that there are frequent messages on Usenet that I can't > figure out which parts are quoted or not. > > I think you'd end up screwing up messages. Personally, I would not like such a filter. When I write a message, I try to edit it so that it is comprehensible as a whole. Automatic processing at the mailer end could end up cutting the important lines from the message I'm replying to. I admit that usually the three-last-lines (or three-first-and-last-lines) would be enough. But enough is not always. juuso -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: > One player in particular was a lurker at one time on the Kalyr list, > and claims she had a 'miserable time' following it. Poor, sheltered CIS users... being exposed to the real Internet. It's unfortunate that modern email hasn't changed enough to facilitate perfect threading, but Pine does a pretty good job. The only place it gets confused is some moron over on the Air Capital Linux Users' Group has his clock set to two hours ahead of the rest of the world and can't be convinced to figure out how to fix it. So his replies always get threaded before the messages they reply to. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000 11:08:03 cdt, you wrote: >Poor, sheltered CIS users... being exposed to the real Internet. Indeed. That's quote is almost worth a Made Tim Laugh Point, but not quite. Can't devalue them too much :) More seriously, there seem to very few people that keep feet in both camps - they either spend all their time on CIS, or drift away from CIS fora once they discover the net. >It's unfortunate that modern email hasn't changed enough to facilitate >perfect threading, but Pine does a pretty good job. The only place it >gets confused is some moron over on the Air Capital Linux Users' Group has >his clock set to two hours ahead of the rest of the world and can't be >convinced to figure out how to fix it. So his replies always get threaded >before the messages they reply to. I've heard of Pine, but that's about my limit. Am I correct in assuming it's a Linux mailer. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: TH>I've heard of Pine, but that's about my limit. Am I correct in TH>assuming it's a Linux mailer. Yep, and definitely not a suitable replacement for Compuserve-raised users. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
Karen Cravens wrote: >Yep, and definitely not a suitable replacement for Compuserve-raised >users. That's enough!I have read Steffan O'Sullivan's "Fudge rec.games.frp.*" with it's flaw of "Compuserve User". -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Tim Hall wrote: > I've heard of Pine, but that's about my limit. Am I correct in > assuming it's a Linux mailer. Unix in generall... it was around before Linux. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Listowner tools are found at http://www.phoenyx.net/listowners
