You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Sebastian Graf <sg...@grove.de> on 2007/10/12 12:15:31 UTC
unsubscribed
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Sebastian Graf
|N |O |C |
--|--|--|--|----------------
| GROVE
Network Operation Center
|
| Firma: NOC Grove GmbH & Co. KG
| Firmensitz: Auf der Stücke 6, 35708 Haiger - Rodenbach
| Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Wetzlar, HRA 5311, HRB 3391
| USt-IdNr: DE 184305615
| Geschäftsführer: Burkhard Greeb, Reiner Grove, Stefan Grove
|
| Telefon: (+49) 2773 / 8167 - 0
| Fax: (+49) 2773 / 8167 - 20
| eMail: info@grove.de
| Firmenseite: http://www.grove.de
|
Re: Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by SM <sm...@resistor.net>.
At 15:52 15-10-2007, Mark Martinec wrote:
>Also, not to forget that mailman in its current version invalidates and
>removes DKIM signatures, while this mailing lists stays faithful and keeps
>messages intact and retains original signatures. (there is supposedly some
>mailman patch floating around to fix that, but I don't know where).
Adding footers to the message or tagging the subject line invalidates
the DKIM signature. You can turn off these features in
mailman. There is a configuration option to retain the original DKIM
signature.
Regards,
-sm
Re: Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
On Monday 15 October 2007 23:52:04 Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
> > BP> comprised of people who know how email works.
> >
> > Wish this list would use e.g., mailman, where one can turn off delivery.
>
> I wish I had an ice cream cone. :)
>
> We use what the ASF provides to us for free.
Also, not to forget that mailman in its current version invalidates and
removes DKIM signatures, while this mailing lists stays faithful and keeps
messages intact and retains original signatures. (there is supposedly some
mailman patch floating around to fix that, but I don't know where).
Mark
Re: Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
> BP> comprised of people who know how email works.
>
> Wish this list would use e.g., mailman, where one can turn off delivery.
I wish I had an ice cream cone. :)
We use what the ASF provides to us for free.
Daryl
Re: Mailman cooler
Posted by ji...@jidanni.org.
RB> You can do the equivalent (to turn off delivery) by un-subscribing
RB> from the user's list and subscribing to
RB> users-allow@spamassassin.apache.org
No wonder.
Be sure to document this wherever you document that there is a mailing
list.
Otherwise users spend hours all the way at the ezmlm mail system
source code site looking for how to do it.
Re: Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by Michelle Konzack <li...@freenet.de>.
Hello René,
Am 2007-10-15 18:34:22, schrieb René Berber:
> jidanni wrote:
>
> > Wish this list would use e.g., mailman, where one can turn off delivery.
>
> You can do the equivalent (to turn off delivery) by un-subscribing from the
> user's list and subscribing to users-allow@spamassassin.apache.org .
>
> --
> René Berber
------------------------- END OF REPLIED MESSAGE -------------------------
Thanks for this info, I was not aware about it.
I will immediatly unsubscribe and resubscribe to the new address since
I am reading from an archive and my E-Mail I sue here is already spamed
by 500-200000 messages per day (depending on the day of the week)
And yes, curently i am hit per day by OVER 200000 messages per day.
But since spamassassin is to slow, I catch them with a procmail-recipe
and get over 95% of them, the rest is checked by spamassassin and some
other tools.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Re: Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by René Berber <r....@computer.org>.
jidanni wrote:
> Wish this list would use e.g., mailman, where one can turn off delivery.
You can do the equivalent (to turn off delivery) by un-subscribing from the
user's list and subscribing to users-allow@spamassassin.apache.org .
--
René Berber
Mailman cooler [Was Re: unsubscribed]
Posted by ji...@jidanni.org.
BP> comprised of people who know how email works.
Wish this list would use e.g., mailman, where one can turn off delivery.
BP> turn to anti-spam tools and their discussion lists to help.
Indeed I use spamassassin to defend against its own list,
score J_SA_MAILING_LIST 55
as I read this list on gmane.org but still wish to post.
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Steve Ingraham <si...@okcca.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michelle Konzack [mailto:linux4michelle@freenet.de]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:49 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: unsubscribed
>
>
> Hello Steve,
>
> when I subscribed to this Mailinglist I have gotten a
> CONFIRMATION message and a WELCOME message which told me HOW
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE.
>
> I do not know the exact text of the WELCOME message, but
> AFAIK there was written, YOU SHOULD SAVE THE MESSAGE FOR
> FURTHER USE/INFOS.
>
> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
>
Thank you for that information. However, I would like to take a moment
to say I was not the original poster requesting to unsubscribe to this
mail list. I merely commented to the thread with my observations. I am
sure this information will be helpful to those following this thread who
are interested in learning how to unsubscribe.
Steve
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Michelle Konzack <li...@freenet.de>.
Hello Steve,
when I subscribed to this Mailinglist I have gotten a CONFIRMATION
message and a WELCOME message which told me HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE.
I do not know the exact text of the WELCOME message, but AFAIK there
was written, YOU SHOULD SAVE THE MESSAGE FOR FURTHER USE/INFOS.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
Steve Ingraham wrote:
> I just wanted to add my agreement to your statements and to ask that
> some posters try to treat all of us asking these supposedly "stupid"
> questions to understand that we really do struggle with
> understanding how all of these systems function.
I see a lot of silly questions asked about SpamAssassin and I think
for the most part people are kind and helpful answering them. I think
most people are excited to see SpamAssassin adopted and used in
interesting ways and are willing to help out.
I think the friction between people starts when discussion turns to
things not-SpamAssassin. These are often concerning the basic
infrastructure things such as email and mailing lists. Since email is
a basic structure that enables people to work together on the Internet
there is some expectation that people will use it at least somewhat
effectively. Think of how disruptive it would be to a university
level calculus lecture if it were frequently interrupted with basic
math questions about 2+2 or with off-topic questions about chemistry.
In this case it is surprising to me that people subscribe successfully
to a mailing list but then can't unsubscribe from it. Why wouldn't
they simply unsubscribe the same way that they subscribed? I don't
know. But we have all seen this happen repeatedly. It is very
distracting.
I think with all of the off-topic discussions lately the mailing list
would gladly welcome silly SpamAssassin questions! Please bring them
on! :-)
Bob
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Steve Ingraham <si...@okcca.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Davis [mailto:cdavis@avionics-specialties.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 3:33 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: unsubscribed
>
>
> Steve, I hope you didn't misunderstand me... I AGREE with you! Clay
>
No! My apologies for the misunderstanding. My bad. I understand what
you are saying. I just wanted to add my agreement to your statements
and to ask that some posters try to treat all of us asking these
supposedly "stupid" questions to understand that we really do struggle
with understanding how all of these systems function.
Steve
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Clay Davis <cd...@avionics-specialties.com>.
Steve, I hope you didn't misunderstand me... I AGREE with you!
Clay
>>> "Steve Ingraham" <si...@okcca.net> 10/16/2007 4:10 PM >>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Davis [mailto:cdavis@avionics-specialties.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:16 PM
> To: Bob Proulx; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: unsubscribed
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I agree and have for a long time. I am always a little taken
> aback when an "unsubscriber" get hammered with sarcasm on this
list...
>
> Plus, I have always "assembled first and read the directions
> later"... especially on Christmas Eve, when the pressure is
> on! It's human nature... but, then, so is sarcasm, I
> guess... at lease in my case it is.
>
> I can't understand why anyone would want to unsubscribe
> anyway! Maybe that's where we should poke fun; <with a
> hearty laugh> "YOU WANT TO DO WHAT?"
>
> re,
> Clay
>
>
> >>> Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com> 10/12/2007 12:46 PM >>>
> Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> > I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an
> anti
> > spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the
> mails they
> > receive
>
> Yes and no. It is a technical list for an anti-spam tool and
> so you would think would be comprised of people who know how
> email works.
>
> But on the other hand people all over the world are
> overwhelmed with spam and turn to anti-spam tools and their
> discussion lists to help. Those are the ones who do not know
> how email works and are also attracted to the same lists out
> of the misunderstanding.
>
> Bob
>
I cannot help but comment on this post. I am one of those ignorant
people that is subscribed to this list (along with several others) for
the purpose of asking questions of you experts out there because I do
not fully understand how it is working. By all accounts everyone of
you
out there would label me as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am
a
novice. As the saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be
dangerous".
What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts
out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over
me
in this spam stuff. I will never consider myself at the level of
understanding you are. Therefore, I need you guys to keep me straight
and show me the errors of my ways when I run into problems. However,
I
would greatly appreciate it if you would not "whip me up the side of
the
head" with my stupidity. Instead work with me with the notion that
you
are talking with one of the "uneducated masses" and direct me to the
correct conclusion to my problem without being so dad blamed vague
about
what needs to happen. Many times I flat don't understand what you are
saying when you might say "just run xyz.123 and it will work". How
many
steps are involved in "running" xyz.123. There may be an awful lot of
steps involved that you already know about but I don't. If you truly
are interested in helping us bozos who don't already know this stuff
why
not talk to us about what we need to do as if we really don't
understand
it instead of talking to us as if we "should" already know about it
and
your flabbergasted because we don't?
Ok, enough ranting. My apologies for taking up everyone's time. I
seldom post here because I do not even remotely pretend to know enough
to help anyone. I felt compelled to post this because I do not think
I
am alone when I mention that it really does get old when I post to
this
list (and others) only to get a condescending or vague response that I
cannot use to help in my situation.
Please be kind to us spamassassin administrators who want to keep
things
functional but have a tub load of other tasks to perform. Many of us
out here are tasked with many many responsibilities of which managing
spamassassin is only a small part. That forces us to not spend as
much
time as we should learning everything there is to know about
spamassassin because we have a dozen other responsibilities to take
care
of.
Ok time to stop now, forgive me for my rant.
Live Long and Prosper,
Steve
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Steve Ingraham wrote:
> Too often I get responses to a question that do not help me to
> understand what is happening because they are condescending, short or
> too vague for me to understand. My intent for my post was to ask those
> of you who do understand these systems to be aware that many of us
> posting on this list may not fully understand them and are asking for
> your expert assistance.
I've always been of the opinion that a terse (not to be construed as
rude or condescending) response from someone who can identify what the
cause of your problem is and can get across in a few words what that
cause is to others who can, once knowing the cause (that they may not
have been able to identify themselves), help you resolve it is better
than nothing. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
People who post asking questions should be aware that some of the people
who are most familiar with the topic don't have the time or patience to
give everyone a detailed response. Again it has long been my opinion
that the community as a whole is better served by (such people with)
terse responses to a lot of people than detailed responses to only a
few. It may take you a little longer to resolve a problem, working with
other list members to do so, after receiving a terse response, but I'd
say that's better than never resolving the problem at all.
Alternatively, I've heard that some knowledgeable people work for food. ;)
Daryl
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Steve Ingraham <si...@okcca.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Frankcom [mailto:nigel@blue-canoe.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:54 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: unsubscribed
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:16:06 +0200, mouss <mo...@netoyen.net> wrote:
>
> >Rob Sterenborg wrote:
> >> Steve Ingraham wrote:
> >>
> >>> I cannot help but comment on this post.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Neither can I.
> >>
> >>
> >>> I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
> >>> (along with several others) for the purpose of asking
> questions of
> >>> you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is
> >>> working. By all accounts everyone of you out there would
> label me
> >>> as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a novice. As the
> >>> saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous".
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sorry, but this is the SpamAssassin list and the subject
> has nothing
> >> to do with "how it's working". If the OP had a question about "how
> >> it's working", he'd get an answer - I'm quite sure of that and I
> >> think you know that.
> >>
> >> This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show
> >> that he searched for himself first on how to do something simple:
> >> unsubscribe from this list. If he put the least effort in finding
> >> information on how to do that (how hard can it be to just
> go to the
> >> SA website and click "Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have
> >> sent the email that started all this.
> >>
> >
> >A lot of people don't see the difference between foo@example.com and
> >foo-owner@example.com (replace "owner" by "unsubscribe", "admin',
> >'request", ... depending on the list). They think these are the same
> >addresses. you can't blame them, really.
> >
> ><nasty idea>
> >for someone to post, he must subscribe, then unsubscribe, then
> >resubscribe. only then can he post a message. Unfortunately,
> even this
> >won't work (besides annoying us with an N steps procedure) as people
> >will anyway forget... </nasty>
> >
> >I have already seen message saying "Please help me unsubscribe from
> >your group...blah blah", and this was a reply to to group message,
> >which signature contains the procedure to unsubscribe! (so
> if the guy
> >just read the message before hitting the send button...). In
> short, he
> >quoted a message that responds to his question.
> >
> >but if people were to search for information effectively,
> they wouldn't
> >buy from spammers, and that alone would reduce spam!
> >
> >>
> >>> What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you
> >>> experts out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your
> >>> superiority over
> >>>
> >> me
> >>
> >>> in this spam stuff.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't think this has anything to do with anyones "superiority in
> >> this spam stuff" (certainly not mine as I'm not). This has
> something
> >> to do with willing to take the effort and finding things out for
> >> yourself instead of just doing something and bother others with it
> >> (well, in this case it would be "bother" I suppose).
> >>
>
> Having started this in the 1st place by questioning why users
> didn't check the headers, I'd like to apologise to anyone
> who's taken offence. My comment was just that, a comment.
>
> Several of the responses have been of the 'we use it for
> quick help' variety; which is fine and something I personally
> have no problem with.
>
> For it to get blown up to this proportion seems a little over
> the top all things considered.
>
> So, for any that took offence from my post, again, I apologise.
>
> I still think checking mail headers is a basic part of manual
> mail checking but hey, I guess others feel differently.
>
> Live and let live.
>
> Regards
>
> Nigel
>
I too wish to express my apologies.
My post was not meant to be directed toward any one individual poster.
I was only voicing some frustrations that have occurred when I do post.
Too often I get responses to a question that do not help me to
understand what is happening because they are condescending, short or
too vague for me to understand. My intent for my post was to ask those
of you who do understand these systems to be aware that many of us
posting on this list may not fully understand them and are asking for
your expert assistance.
I read posts daily and very seldom post myself. I think this should
have been another instance when I did not post as well. My post was
motivated by frustrations that I should not have expressed here.
Live Long and Prosper
Steve
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:16:06 +0200, mouss <mo...@netoyen.net> wrote:
>Rob Sterenborg wrote:
>> Steve Ingraham wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot help but comment on this post.
>>>
>>
>> Neither can I.
>>
>>
>>> I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
>>> (along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
>>> you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is
>>> working. By all accounts everyone of you out there would label me
>>> as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a novice. As the
>>> saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous".
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but this is the SpamAssassin list and the subject has nothing to
>> do with "how it's working". If the OP had a question about "how it's
>> working", he'd get an answer - I'm quite sure of that and I think you
>> know that.
>>
>> This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show that
>> he searched for himself first on how to do something simple: unsubscribe
>> from this list. If he put the least effort in finding information on how
>> to do that (how hard can it be to just go to the SA website and click
>> "Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have sent the email that started
>> all this.
>>
>
>A lot of people don't see the difference between foo@example.com and
>foo-owner@example.com (replace "owner" by "unsubscribe", "admin',
>'request", ... depending on the list). They think these are the same
>addresses. you can't blame them, really.
>
><nasty idea>
>for someone to post, he must subscribe, then unsubscribe, then
>resubscribe. only then can he post a message. Unfortunately, even this
>won't work (besides annoying us with an N steps procedure) as people
>will anyway forget...
></nasty>
>
>I have already seen message saying "Please help me unsubscribe from your
>group...blah blah", and this was a reply to to group message, which
>signature contains the procedure to unsubscribe! (so if the guy just
>read the message before hitting the send button...). In short, he quoted
>a message that responds to his question.
>
>but if people were to search for information effectively, they wouldn't
>buy from spammers, and that alone would reduce spam!
>
>>
>>> What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts
>>> out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over
>>>
>> me
>>
>>> in this spam stuff.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think this has anything to do with anyones "superiority in this
>> spam stuff" (certainly not mine as I'm not). This has something to do
>> with willing to take the effort and finding things out for yourself
>> instead of just doing something and bother others with it (well, in this
>> case it would be "bother" I suppose).
>>
Having started this in the 1st place by questioning why users didn't
check the headers, I'd like to apologise to anyone who's taken
offence. My comment was just that, a comment.
Several of the responses have been of the 'we use it for quick help'
variety; which is fine and something I personally have no problem
with.
For it to get blown up to this proportion seems a little over the top
all things considered.
So, for any that took offence from my post, again, I apologise.
I still think checking mail headers is a basic part of manual mail
checking but hey, I guess others feel differently.
Live and let live.
Regards
Nigel
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by mouss <mo...@netoyen.net>.
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
> Steve Ingraham wrote:
>
>> I cannot help but comment on this post.
>>
>
> Neither can I.
>
>
>> I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
>> (along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
>> you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is
>> working. By all accounts everyone of you out there would label me
>> as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a novice. As the
>> saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous".
>>
>
> Sorry, but this is the SpamAssassin list and the subject has nothing to
> do with "how it's working". If the OP had a question about "how it's
> working", he'd get an answer - I'm quite sure of that and I think you
> know that.
>
> This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show that
> he searched for himself first on how to do something simple: unsubscribe
> from this list. If he put the least effort in finding information on how
> to do that (how hard can it be to just go to the SA website and click
> "Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have sent the email that started
> all this.
>
A lot of people don't see the difference between foo@example.com and
foo-owner@example.com (replace "owner" by "unsubscribe", "admin',
'request", ... depending on the list). They think these are the same
addresses. you can't blame them, really.
<nasty idea>
for someone to post, he must subscribe, then unsubscribe, then
resubscribe. only then can he post a message. Unfortunately, even this
won't work (besides annoying us with an N steps procedure) as people
will anyway forget...
</nasty>
I have already seen message saying "Please help me unsubscribe from your
group...blah blah", and this was a reply to to group message, which
signature contains the procedure to unsubscribe! (so if the guy just
read the message before hitting the send button...). In short, he quoted
a message that responds to his question.
but if people were to search for information effectively, they wouldn't
buy from spammers, and that alone would reduce spam!
>
>> What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts
>> out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over
>>
> me
>
>> in this spam stuff.
>>
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with anyones "superiority in this
> spam stuff" (certainly not mine as I'm not). This has something to do
> with willing to take the effort and finding things out for yourself
> instead of just doing something and bother others with it (well, in this
> case it would be "bother" I suppose).
>
>
> Grts,
> Rob
>
>
>
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Clay Davis <cd...@avionics-specialties.com>.
I would agree if using "unsubscribe" in the subject line to get removed
from many mailing lists weren't so common... its almost the norm, or at
least it was.
I do agree that the SA group is always helpful when "how it works"
questions are asked. Some have even called me long distance on their
dime to help; definitely above and beyond expectations.
I find it a little amusing that anyone is even reading this thread. I
ALMOST never open any message from the SA list with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line and the only reason I opened this one was because the
subject was "unsubscribed" and I thought that mistyping the incorrect
way to get removed from the list would certainly have brought some funny
replies (I call it "voyeuristically sarcastic"... I don't participate,
but find it irresistible to read).
Re,
Clay
>>> "Rob Sterenborg" <R....@netsourcing.nl> 10/17/2007 2:25 AM
>>>
<... clipped>
This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show
that
he searched for himself first on how to do something simple:
unsubscribe
from this list. If he put the least effort in finding information on
how
to do that (how hard can it be to just go to the SA website and click
"Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have sent the email that
started
all this.
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Rob Sterenborg <R....@netsourcing.nl>.
Steve Ingraham wrote:
> I cannot help but comment on this post.
Neither can I.
> I am one of those ignorant people that is subscribed to this list
> (along with several others) for the purpose of asking questions of
> you experts out there because I do not fully understand how it is
> working. By all accounts everyone of you out there would label me
> as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a novice. As the
> saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be dangerous".
Sorry, but this is the SpamAssassin list and the subject has nothing to
do with "how it's working". If the OP had a question about "how it's
working", he'd get an answer - I'm quite sure of that and I think you
know that.
This specific thread has become a rant because the OP did not show that
he searched for himself first on how to do something simple: unsubscribe
from this list. If he put the least effort in finding information on how
to do that (how hard can it be to just go to the SA website and click
"Lists" to find the info?), he wouldn't have sent the email that started
all this.
> What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts
> out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over
me
> in this spam stuff.
I don't think this has anything to do with anyones "superiority in this
spam stuff" (certainly not mine as I'm not). This has something to do
with willing to take the effort and finding things out for yourself
instead of just doing something and bother others with it (well, in this
case it would be "bother" I suppose).
Grts,
Rob
RE: unsubscribed
Posted by Steve Ingraham <si...@okcca.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Davis [mailto:cdavis@avionics-specialties.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:16 PM
> To: Bob Proulx; users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: unsubscribed
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I agree and have for a long time. I am always a little taken
> aback when an "unsubscriber" get hammered with sarcasm on this list...
>
> Plus, I have always "assembled first and read the directions
> later"... especially on Christmas Eve, when the pressure is
> on! It's human nature... but, then, so is sarcasm, I
> guess... at lease in my case it is.
>
> I can't understand why anyone would want to unsubscribe
> anyway! Maybe that's where we should poke fun; <with a
> hearty laugh> "YOU WANT TO DO WHAT?"
>
> re,
> Clay
>
>
> >>> Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com> 10/12/2007 12:46 PM >>>
> Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> > I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an
> anti
> > spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the
> mails they
> > receive
>
> Yes and no. It is a technical list for an anti-spam tool and
> so you would think would be comprised of people who know how
> email works.
>
> But on the other hand people all over the world are
> overwhelmed with spam and turn to anti-spam tools and their
> discussion lists to help. Those are the ones who do not know
> how email works and are also attracted to the same lists out
> of the misunderstanding.
>
> Bob
>
I cannot help but comment on this post. I am one of those ignorant
people that is subscribed to this list (along with several others) for
the purpose of asking questions of you experts out there because I do
not fully understand how it is working. By all accounts everyone of you
out there would label me as a novice. The truth of the matter is I am a
novice. As the saying goes; "I know enough about this stuff to be
dangerous".
What I would like to say by posting this is; why don't all you experts
out there relax a bit? I, for one, acknowledge your superiority over me
in this spam stuff. I will never consider myself at the level of
understanding you are. Therefore, I need you guys to keep me straight
and show me the errors of my ways when I run into problems. However, I
would greatly appreciate it if you would not "whip me up the side of the
head" with my stupidity. Instead work with me with the notion that you
are talking with one of the "uneducated masses" and direct me to the
correct conclusion to my problem without being so dad blamed vague about
what needs to happen. Many times I flat don't understand what you are
saying when you might say "just run xyz.123 and it will work". How many
steps are involved in "running" xyz.123. There may be an awful lot of
steps involved that you already know about but I don't. If you truly
are interested in helping us bozos who don't already know this stuff why
not talk to us about what we need to do as if we really don't understand
it instead of talking to us as if we "should" already know about it and
your flabbergasted because we don't?
Ok, enough ranting. My apologies for taking up everyone's time. I
seldom post here because I do not even remotely pretend to know enough
to help anyone. I felt compelled to post this because I do not think I
am alone when I mention that it really does get old when I post to this
list (and others) only to get a condescending or vague response that I
cannot use to help in my situation.
Please be kind to us spamassassin administrators who want to keep things
functional but have a tub load of other tasks to perform. Many of us
out here are tasked with many many responsibilities of which managing
spamassassin is only a small part. That forces us to not spend as much
time as we should learning everything there is to know about
spamassassin because we have a dozen other responsibilities to take care
of.
Ok time to stop now, forgive me for my rant.
Live Long and Prosper,
Steve
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Clay Davis <cd...@avionics-specialties.com>.
Bob,
I agree and have for a long time. I am always a little taken aback
when an "unsubscriber" get hammered with sarcasm on this list...
Plus, I have always "assembled first and read the directions later"...
especially on Christmas Eve, when the pressure is on! It's human
nature... but, then, so is sarcasm, I guess... at lease in my case it
is.
I can't understand why anyone would want to unsubscribe anyway! Maybe
that's where we should poke fun; <with a hearty laugh> "YOU WANT TO DO
WHAT?"
re,
Clay
>>> Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com> 10/12/2007 12:46 PM >>>
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an
anti
> spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the mails they
> receive
Yes and no. It is a technical list for an anti-spam tool and so you
would think would be comprised of people who know how email works.
But on the other hand people all over the world are overwhelmed with
spam and turn to anti-spam tools and their discussion lists to help.
Those are the ones who do not know how email works and are also
attracted to the same lists out of the misunderstanding.
Bob
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Ralf Hildebrandt <Ra...@charite.de>.
* Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>:
> Yes and no. It is a technical list for an anti-spam tool and so you
> would think would be comprised of people who know how email works.
Oh, my users cannot read either, and we're at an university here. Go figure.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de
Charite - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-Berlin Fax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962
IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to plonk@charite.de
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
> I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an anti
> spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the mails they
> receive
Yes and no. It is a technical list for an anti-spam tool and so you
would think would be comprised of people who know how email works.
But on the other hand people all over the world are overwhelmed with
spam and turn to anti-spam tools and their discussion lists to help.
Those are the ones who do not know how email works and are also
attracted to the same lists out of the misunderstanding.
Bob
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
/Me laughs
OK - enough! I've had over 30 replies now telling me what it means.
Many thanks to all those linguists, I'm now slightly better educated
in German salutations :-D
Kind regards
Nigel
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:14:53 -0700, Evan Platt
<ev...@espphotography.com> wrote:
>According to babelfishm "Mit freundlichen Grüßen" means "yours sincerely".
>
>At 04:33 AM 10/12/2007, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>>I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an anti
>>spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the mails they
>>receive
>>
>>list-unsubscribe: <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>
>>
>>Not sure what the message says though, I don't speak German :-)
>>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:15:31 +0200, "Sebastian Graf" <sg...@grove.de>
>>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Evan Platt <ev...@espphotography.com>.
According to babelfishm "Mit freundlichen Grüßen" means "yours sincerely".
At 04:33 AM 10/12/2007, Nigel Frankcom wrote:
>I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an anti
>spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the mails they
>receive
>
>list-unsubscribe: <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>
>
>Not sure what the message says though, I don't speak German :-)
>
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:15:31 +0200, "Sebastian Graf" <sg...@grove.de>
>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Re: unsubscribed
Posted by Nigel Frankcom <ni...@blue-canoe.com>.
I am amazed at the number of list users that unsubscribe from an anti
spam list and yet they fail to look at the headers of the mails they
receive
list-unsubscribe: <ma...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Not sure what the message says though, I don't speak German :-)
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:15:31 +0200, "Sebastian Graf" <sg...@grove.de>
wrote:
>
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
>Sebastian Graf
>
> |N |O |C |
> --|--|--|--|----------------
> | GROVE
> Network Operation Center
>
>|
>| Firma: NOC Grove GmbH & Co. KG
>| Firmensitz: Auf der Stücke 6, 35708 Haiger - Rodenbach
>| Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Wetzlar, HRA 5311, HRB 3391
>| USt-IdNr: DE 184305615
>| Geschäftsführer: Burkhard Greeb, Reiner Grove, Stefan Grove
>|
>| Telefon: (+49) 2773 / 8167 - 0
>| Fax: (+49) 2773 / 8167 - 20
>| eMail: info@grove.de
>| Firmenseite: http://www.grove.de
>|