On 2007-10-19, Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reply to list:
> http://cweiske.de/misc_extensions.htm#replyToList
Oddly enough this one isn't working for me on testing's TB! (2.0.0.6). I
have both MHengy and Enigmail installed. :(
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:01:42PM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > I started a small mailing list for some old buddies and I to use
> > > as we
> > > plan our camping trip for next year. Its something we do every 4 years
> > > or so and it generates all kinds of mail in the process. I th
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 09:34:47PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:51:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Miles Bader wrote:
> > > > I expect that google is somewhat chary about adding more buttons
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:51:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Miles Bader wrote:
> > > I expect that google is somewhat chary about adding more buttons to
> > > their UI (look how long it took them to add a "delete" button!)
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:51:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:
> > I expect that google is somewhat chary about adding more buttons to
> > their UI (look how long it took them to add a "delete" button!),
> > especially one as potentially confusing as reply-to-list-only. The
> > c
On 10/18/2007 11:51 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
Miles Bader wrote:
I expect that google is somewhat chary about adding more buttons to
their UI (look how long it took them to add a "delete" button!),
especially one as potentially confusing as reply-to-list-only. The
current reply-to-all is much saf
Miles Bader wrote:
> I expect that google is somewhat chary about adding more buttons to
> their UI (look how long it took them to add a "delete" button!),
> especially one as potentially confusing as reply-to-list-only. The
> current reply-to-all is much safer.
Which is the exact reason why
On 10/18/07, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kelly Clowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> "This" being?
> >
> > "This" being the idea that gmail has no way to detect that this
> > is a mailing list.
>
> You're right, gmail can detect _that_.
>
> > Based on this gmail could add a "reply
"Kelly Clowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "This" being?
>
> "This" being the idea that gmail has no way to detect that this
> is a mailing list.
You're right, gmail can detect _that_.
> Based on this gmail could add a "reply to list button"
... and it could add a button with that ("reply to
Steve Lamb wrote:
Nate Duehr wrote:
I didn't start the insults, please look back through the thread. The
original poster gets more and more agitated that people aren't
"testing correctly" without fully defining his problem from the
beginning.
I did, I started from the beginning and didn
Bret Busby wrote:
I hope that my apology is accepted, and that we can move on.
For what it's worth Bret, I apologize for blowing up on you also.
I won't apologize for being angry at the rest of the folks who dog-piled
on, who still aren't attempting to help you in any way, but had plenty
to
On 10/18/07, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> About what? Gmail did the right thing, given the information available.
> >> The peculiar constraints of this mailing list are just that; gmail has
> >> no way to detect them, so it's up to you as the
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> About what? Gmail did the right thing, given the information available.
>> The peculiar constraints of this mailing list are just that; gmail has
>> no way to detect them, so it's up to you as the reader to follow them
>> (or instruct your MUA to do so).
>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:56:45PM -0600, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
Nate Duehr wr
Nate Duehr wrote:
I didn't start the insults, please look back through the thread. The
original poster gets more and more agitated that people aren't "testing
correctly" without fully defining his problem from the beginning.
I did, I started from the beginning and didn't feel compelled to
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:19:01PM +0800, Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
>> The kernel should handle cleaning up application memory (or "permanently
>> caching" any memory that wasn't de-allocated at the iceweasel/iceape
>> crashes. Once cached, if never called for again they'l
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:56:45PM -0600, Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
>> heard to say:
>>> Nate Duehr wrote:
Perhaps you
might ar
On Oct 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Daniel Burrows wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Steve Lamb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
Nate Duehr wrote:
Perhaps you
might argue that the software should handle it perfectly, but at
that
level of insanity, I certainly don't care anymo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:52:40PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Not sure what's opening the extra windows though.
>
> Unless it's some for of advertising from the web sites. I browse
> through a sqiud+adzapper proxy so I tend to miss a large portion of cruft
> that the net
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:19:01 +0800 (WST), Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I didn't expect bigotry on this list.
I am not sure bigotry means what you think it does. You asked
for volunteers to help you with a problem; they said that the problem
you presented was presented in a f
Daniel Burrows wrote:
Personally, I would hope that developers and package maintainers would
also keep their insults to themselves.
Touche'.
BTW (not just to you, Daniel) looks like it's time for the friendly
reminder of list CoC... Don't CC unless requested. Thanks.
--
Miles Bader wrote:
About what? Gmail did the right thing, given the information available.
The peculiar constraints of this mailing list are just that; gmail has
no way to detect them, so it's up to you as the reader to follow them
(or instruct your MUA to do so).
This is false and has bee
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:19:01PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
[I think I've managed to snip the bile]
> >41 webpages open and you're experiencing problems. Gee, there's a big
> >surprise. You're somewhat pushing the bounds of sanity at that point, for
On 10/17/07, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Kelly Clowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note to self: time to bug google about that again.
>
> About what? Gmail did the right thing, given the information available.
> The peculiar constraints of this mailing list are just that; gmail
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Perhaps you
>> might argue that the software should handle it perfectly, but at that
>> level of insanity, I certainly don't care anymore... as one user to
>> another -- since I'm no
"Kelly Clowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry about the To/CC thing, I was so busy writing that
> I forgot gmail is stupid about mailing lists.
>
> Note to self: time to bug google about that again.
About what? Gmail did the right thing, given the information available.
The peculiar constra
On 10/17/07, Kelly Clowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/15/07, Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry about the To/CC thing, I was so busy writing that
I forgot gmail is stupid about mailing lists.
Note to self: time to bug google about that again.
Cheers,
Kelly
--
To UNSUBSCR
On 10/15/07, Bret Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I note that the only action that I can take, when the offence occurs,
> is to twice minimise the offending browser windows that are opened by
> the application; as, as already mentioned, if I close the offending
> browser windows, it crashes th
Steve Lamb wrote:
Not sure what's opening the extra windows though.
Unless it's some for of advertising from the web sites. I browse through
a sqiud+adzapper proxy so I tend to miss a large portion of cruft that the net
tries to throw at my browser.
--
Steve C. Lamb |
Nate Duehr wrote:
Bret Busby wrote:
As an example, for one country, to read the news, I have a bookmark
set that I use, that has 32 URL's, so that I have at least 32 tabs
open in the browser window for the news for that country. As I open
links for news stories, I can have tabs open, that go o
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Nate Duehr wrote:
Note that on the top of the first example page it says:
"This page has been replaced by an improved version so it will be
discontinued after August 31st 2006. Please update your bookmarks."
Cute. 2006, huh?
They're right on the ball there at the Oz
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Nate Duehr wrote:
41 webpages open and you're experiencing problems. Gee, there's a big
surprise. You're somewhat pushing the bounds of sanity at that point, for
just about any browser.
(And my interest in helping with your problem just vanished completely. I
can't
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:48:32PM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> Your thread now (to me personally anyway reads like this):
>
> "Dear Debian community, I tried to drive the car you provided at RPM
> red-line and excessive speeds for days on end, and it has exhibited some
> bad behavior when I abu
Nate Duehr wrote:
> Bret Busby wrote:
>
>> The web addresses, or, URL's, that are involved with the unauthorised
>> "untitld windows" being opened, vary, from addresses to which I have
>> previously been, to addresses that I regularly visit, inclusing the
>> two below, with such addresses being un
Bret Busby wrote:
Before I go purging and reinstalling software, and trying to rebuild
associations (or whatever they are named), like when I click on a link
to a .pdf file and it is opened by a PDF viewer (not Adobe Acrobat -
that is not installable), and then trying to again configure the
r
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Mumia W.. wrote:
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:14:11 -0500
From: Mumia W.. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian User List
Subject: Re: Query about Iceape, Iceweasel
Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:34:28 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On 10/16/2007 01
Bret Busby wrote:
The web addresses, or, URL's, that are involved with the unauthorised
"untitld windows" being opened, vary, from addresses to which I have
previously been, to addresses that I regularly visit, inclusing the two
below, with such addresses being unlikely to involve malicious co
Mumia W.. wrote:
> Your Iceweasel/Mozilla profile might also be messed up. Move your
> profile to someplace where Iceweasel can't find it, e.g. a trash
> directory. Do this before starting iceweasel again. Read here about your
> profile folder:
Alternatively, you can invoke it as:
iceweasel -pr
On 10/16/2007 01:30 AM, Bret Busby wrote:
[...]
The "untitled windows" appear to open as pop-ups, although I have a
setup configuration of the web browsers, to block pop-ups, which
obviously does not work within the software.
The problem also appears to occur, apart from when I open links in
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 23:20:41 -0700
From: Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Query about Iceape, Iceweasel
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:56:31PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
Who is responsib
On 10/09/2007 11:56 PM, Bret Busby wrote:
Who is responsible for Iceape and Iceweasel?
apt-cache show iceweasel | grep Maintainer
I am running Debian 4.0, which came with these two applications rather
than the Mozilla applications, and the two applications appear to be
quite buggy and unst
On Oct 10, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Both Iceape and Iceweasel, open up "untitled windows" when trying
to open
web pages at all kinds of locations, and, trying to close one of
these
"untitled windows" when it is initially displayed, crashes the
application,
including
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:56:31PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> Who is responsible for Iceape and Iceweasel?
>
> I am running Debian 4.0, which came with these two applications rather than
> the Mozilla applications, and the two applications appear to be quite buggy
> and unstable.
they are rena
43 matches
Mail list logo
