Hello,
Lex Chive:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 06:28:37PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> > > It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of
> > > hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge,
> > > uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, i
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 06:33:14PM +1000, Jiri Baum wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sami Dalouche:
> > > The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed
> > > if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when
> > > appropriate, something along the lines of "this is an
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 09:01:10PM +, Nathan Valentine wrote:
> Sami Dalouche wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:37:09PM +0100, BENJAMIN FARRELL wrote:
> > > Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x
> > > (other
> > > than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't
> And don't reply with: "Have you tried mutt?" I have. I do not like mutt or elm
Hmm. What's the problem w/ mutt ?
If it's too awful, it could be great to develop a Gnome or GTK interface to
it. Is it possible - if a developper could answer - ?
Have you tried Kmail, The KDE mail software ? I know
I use the Netscape Mail program and am quite happy with it.
I've recently returned to Netscape Mail from Pegasus, which is nice,
but has a few little annoying things that Netscape doesn't:
New messages appear in the "New Mail" folder. Once they move from
there (after reading) they can't be put
> To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY think Linux lags
> behind
> is email. I miss an email client coming close to for instance Outlook Express
> and The Bat! for Windows (or even Eudora!). The only one is XFmail which
> currently is not being developed it seems.
The Outlook f
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 06:28:37PM +0200, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> > It's one thing to send Christmas gifs to people that are a couple of
> > hundred bytes long; it's quite a different story when it's a huge,
> > uncompressed bitmap which does exactly the same job. Sadly, in most e-mail
> > clients e
Hello,
Sami Dalouche:
> > The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed
> > if the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when
> > appropriate, something along the lines of "this is an unusually large
> > message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N)"
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:49:57AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> Oh, indeed - the signature placement is just plain wrong,
I'm pretty sure it encourages no .sig delimiters too - you have to
insert your own, and even then it strips the trailing space.
> and the quote
> line is bad too (although no
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:35:54AM +0100, Alisdair McDiarmid wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:25:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You
> > Placing the cu
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 12:25:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You
> > can't quote quoted-printable encoded mails, you are placed on
> > top on a reply (thous encou
>> "Mark" == Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have yet to see a program on any operating system that comes close
>> to the power of gnus.
Mark> Which also starts you off at the top.
Not if you don't want this. It is a changeable, as everything
else.
The problem is not the cursor at
On Sat, Jul 03, 1999 at 11:43:27PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> Sorry, but OE doesn't deserve to be called a email client. You can't
> quote quoted-printable encoded mails, you are placed on top on a reply
> (thous encouraging the newbie to answer above the text and leave a
> full quote bel
>> "Christian" == Christian Dysthe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY
Christian> think Linux lags behind is email. I miss an email client
Christian> coming close to for instance Outlook Express and The Bat!
Christian> for Windows (or eve
On 03-Jul-99 Sami Dalouche wrote:
>
>> anyone). I still find for everyday use Win95/NT is better (quaking, ircing)
To a certain extent I have to agree, but where I REALLY think Linux lags behind
is email. I miss an email client coming close to for instance Outlook Express
and The Bat! for Windo
Sami Dalouche wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 12:37:09PM +0100, BENJAMIN FARRELL wrote:
> > Heres a good point about linux, anyone found a good irc client for x (other
> > than Bitchx in a E-Term :) that doesn't crash everytime you click (yagirc
> Yes ! There's Bitchx in an X-Term :-)
> The operative word being `need to'. It'd be a very good feature indeed if
> the e-mail client checked the size of the message and said, when
> appropriate, something along the lines of "this is an unusually large
> message by Internet standards; are you sure? (y/N)" and popped up a wizard
> for o
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> suse-linux-e@suse.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Date: 28 March 1999
On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 11:40:44PM +1000, Chris Leishman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 08:42:11PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't we still have the spooling problem unless you can co-ordinate sender
> > and receiver to be on line in different time zones in different parts of
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 1999 at 08:42:11PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Don't we still have the spooling problem unless you can co-ordinate sender
> and receiver to be on line in different time zones in different parts of
> the world simultaneously.
Actually - I was thinking that you would pass t
> Well...yes, it has gotten out of hand - but really, why waste it?
And don't forget the entertainment value :)
>
> One program I use regularily on linux is sendfile (see the sendfile package
> guys). This program is very useful - although it suffers from some of the
> same problems as email
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 12:41:34AM -0500, Steve Beitzel wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> Err...I don't mean to nag or anything, but hasn't this thread
> gotten a little out of hand? I mean, it's like ten days running now, it
>
At 12:05 AM 4/14/99 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>I don't know if that's standard for ISPs in the US, but in the UK it is
>normal not to have a shell account or FTP space. HTTP is normally
>avalible, but something like 10-25MB space seems standard.
Which is enough for someone to put in an embedde
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:24:00PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Wrong. 99.5% of the population has access to an FTP server that will
> allow aonymous FTP access. They can place the file there. They could also
I don't know if that's standard for ISPs in the US, but in the UK it is
normal not
On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 12:47:34PM -0700, fockface dickmeat wrote:
> That's fine if you have a nice little linux box, with a static IP. The
> 99.5% of the planet that doesn't is screwed. If you don't want large
> attachments, then set sendmail (or whatever else you're using) to
> reject it. You sho
I regarded it as the fact that you were declaring the part that I was
dealing with dead. I will continue to do so, unless there's something I
can add to the windoze thing--probably once I start playing with wine.
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 12-Apr-99 John Galt wrote:
> >
Jiri Baum wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> John Galt:
> > > Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email,
>
> Umm, no, cryptography is the art of writing messages that can only be
> decoded by the intended recipient. Very little to do with e-mail.
>
> If you have messages that MUST not get into hostil
Jiri Baum:
> > If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest
> > reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it
> > these days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling...
Jonathan Guthrie:
> ITYM Bruce Schneier.
Yeah, that one. Bruce Sterling is som
On 12-Apr-99 John Galt wrote:
>
> The thread was declared dead last week.
Was it?
If so, if it died, then that was a result of being force-fed with alien
material ("long emails", "security in email", and the like).
Whereas, my original posting that started the thread -- which continues
to rec
The thread was declared dead last week.
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Jiri Baum wrote:
> Hello,
>
> John Galt:
> > What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not
> > get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no
> > access to the other's machine, due to
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Jiri Baum wrote:
> If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest
> reading a good cryptography text (sorry, I'm not keeping up with it these
> days; is `Applied Cryptography' by Bruce Sterling...
ITYM Bruce Schneier.
--
Jonathan Guthrie ([EMAIL PROTECT
Hello,
John Galt:
> What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not
> get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no
> access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then?
> This method should be as easy and as transportable as PO
Hello,
John Galt:
> > Most crypto is based on a similar setup to email,
Umm, no, cryptography is the art of writing messages that can only be
decoded by the intended recipient. Very little to do with e-mail.
If you have messages that MUST not get into hostile hands, I suggest
reading a good cryp
>The technology is there to send large files easily. Embed a URL
into an
>email message and most email clients will automatically launch either
the FTP
>client to get the file, or the browser which has FTP capabilities to
get the
>file.
That's fine if you have a nice little linux box, wit
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > then welcome. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to anyone
> > using email for large attachments. That is why I say that as the
> > size of the attachment
>
> The commercial world is a far more practical place. You can't take a
> stand on large
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 11:00:26PM +0100, Andrew Holmes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to
> automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at
> the ISP :-)
to avoid downloading long letters you can use the -l option
of fetchmail
-Mic
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 09:06:09PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Well, one guy came up with a great situation. "What if..." What if I
> were on a machine that had no compiler, had no net access, no floppy drive,
> had no other editors or things which could be used *as* editors (sed & ed
> come to
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Internet Protocols:
> FTP: Name says it all.
> HTTP: Not as nice as FTP, but it still is worlds better than email.
>
> Intranet Protocols:
> SMB: Microsoft to the rescue
> FTP: Still works
> HTTP: Hey, still works.
> NFS: Works wonders,
Hey All,
Err...I don't mean to nag or anything, but hasn't this thread
gotten a little out of hand? I mean, it's like ten days running now, it
no longer bears any semblence to the subject, and there has been flaming
from sunsite's rfc-index
196 Watson, R. "Mail Box Protocol" (Not online) 1971 July 20; 4 p.
(Obsoleted by RFC 221)
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:36:40 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>
> >But the ema
Hi,
I doubt that my ISP would agree to that :-) But I could ask.
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:33:31PM -0500, Jonathan Guthrie wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Andrew Holmes wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to
> > automatically bounce messages over a certain s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:36:40 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>But the emailing standard predates both FTP and HTTP, thus the situation
>existed once.
Excuse me? Which emailing standard? AFAICT by the RFCs email emerged
as its own protocol around t
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:10:33 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>
> >I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the
> >obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email.
>
> And if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 19:10:33 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the
>obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email.
And if email isn't available? And the protocol after that? And a
Sure, sounds good to me; I'm tired anyway. Truth be
known I've sent a more than a few files through the
mail myself . Anyways, I'm down in Boise, if you
ever get down this way let me know.
Best wishes, G.S.
--- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? W
I posited a problem wherein FTP and HTTP were both unavailable, so the
obvious solution is mail--NOT snail mail, email. The abuses are there,
but there are times when FTP and HTTP are unusable-- in fact, there are
"bridge sites" that let you FTP -> email, HTTP <-> FTP is regularly
done in most br
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we? We're both right as far as it
goes--you have the most elegant solution, I have the quick and dirty
solution. Both are partly right and partly wrong, mine because there's
abuse, yours because it's a hassle beyond the worth of most attachments
and dependent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:23:35 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>Basic-4 many a moon ago, those things are HEAVY). In fact, I asked for
>the correct protocol, and all you gave me was sneakernet. Sneakernet is
>never the correct protocol, it's just a quick
Frankly I couldn't care less about whether or not you use procmail, exim,
or UUCP. Any and all of them have the capability to accept attachments.
My point is that there are times when large attachments to email are not
only desirable, but the easiest solution. I agree that there is abuse,
but le
--- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote:
>
> > --- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the accepted method of sending a file to
> a
> > > person that MUST not
> > > get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get
> between
> > > users th
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Andrew Holmes wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to
> automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at
> the ISP :-)
That would be the MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE configuration parameter from
sendmail.cf, now, wouldn't it?
--
Jonathan
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 07:00:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> is restrictive, well, that is their problem and not something that the
> entire Internet community as a whole should suffer for. And, as always, a
^^
> ZIP disk and next day air is a
On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:47:49AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> >The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size.
> >There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large,
> >useful ones. I don't thin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:44:00 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>SNEAKERNET just because YOU can't configure procmail? I'd say that your
>failure to configure procmail is YOUR problem, not one to be visited on
>the internet at large. I've sneakernetted fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:37:54 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>Okay, I guess this is a good thing, but what about when the permission is
>given already? And what about when the "holding area" is unavailable,
>such as with ISPs that give you enough server
SNEAKERNET just because YOU can't configure procmail? I'd say that your
failure to configure procmail is YOUR problem, not one to be visited on
the internet at large. I've sneakernetted files of a size that would
make you blanch in my day, but I see no reason to do this as a matter of
protocol,
Okay, I guess this is a good thing, but what about when the permission is
given already? And what about when the "holding area" is unavailable,
such as with ISPs that give you enough server space to hold your
configuration files and not much more? If these problems ahve a simplish
solution, I gu
Is there a deb?
Brant Wells wrote:
> Howdy all...
>
> I saw a message in this thread pass by a couple of days ago... It was
> talking about some software called VMWare. Http://www.vmware.com
>
> Anyone that has a PC with Linux & Win 9x/NT installed needs to see this
> site. I've downloaded th
Howdy all...
I saw a message in this thread pass by a couple of days ago... It was
talking about some software called VMWare. Http://www.vmware.com
Anyone that has a PC with Linux & Win 9x/NT installed needs to see this
site. I've downloaded the software for Linux (still in the first beta
stag
--- Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Gary
> Singleton wrote:
> > No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments
> in
> > the 300-600K range from her friend back home.
> > Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files
> called
> > something li
--- Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 02:45:33PM -0700, George
> Bonser wrote:
> > Look at the Linux package sendfile and the
> preliminary draft of the RFC
> > for the saft profocol.
> >
> > The way it works is this:
> >
> > I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Gilman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 10:34 PM
Subject: Ethics Violation in XFree86
>lies about its capabilities? I refer to XFree86's
>pervasively well-documented feature of supporting
>multiheaded (multipl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 5 Apr 1999 14:43:46 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>The fact that these things are useless to you is seperate to their size.
>There are small, useless attachments just as much as their are large,
>useful ones. I don't think we should ignore larg
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 02:45:33PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> Look at the Linux package sendfile and the preliminary draft of the RFC
> for the saft profocol.
>
> The way it works is this:
>
> I send a file to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curious. The long-gone ACSnet (Australian Computer Society networ
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Gary Singleton wrote:
> No they don't! My wife routinely gets attachments in
> the 300-600K range from her friend back home.
> Yesterday, her friend sent a couple of files called
> something like easterbunny.exe both about 1.5M.
> Obviously this is a DOS
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 06:22:59AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:10:08 +1000 (EST), Jiri Baum wrote:
>
> >Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB
> >(or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't
> >send large amounts o
On Sun, Apr 04, 1999 at 11:06:32AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hamish> What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited attachments
> Hamish> were acceptable, only that solicited ones of any size should
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited attachments
Hamish> were acceptable, only that solicited ones of any size should
Hamish> work.
Then pay for it.
The problem is not the transport but at y
--- George Bonser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Gary Singleton wrote:
>
> > --- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > What's the accepted method of sending a file to
> a
> > > person that MUST not
> > > get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get
> between
> > > user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 13:06:47 -0600 (MDT), John Galt wrote:
>What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not get
>into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no access to
>the other's machine, due to dynamic PP
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:42:58 -0700, you wrote:
>Gary Singleton wrote:
>
>[..]
>> As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily
>> we're not susceptible to their evils.
>
>Don't get mad: get even.
I think public needs to be educated on the issue but the marketing
effort has been
--- John Galt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What's the accepted method of sending a file to a
> person that MUST not
> get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between
> users that have no
> access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP
> and hostile ISPs, then?
Dynamic IP addresses can b
What's the accepted method of sending a file to a person that MUST not
get into unfriendly hands, but needs to get between users that have no
access to the other's machine, due to dynamic PPP and hostile ISPs, then?
This method should be as easy and as transportable as POPmail, not
involve other s
Gary Singleton wrote:
[..]
> As an aside, this person sends .doc files regularly too; luckily
> we're not susceptible to their evils.
Don't get mad: get even. People that send me .doc files generally
recieve a copy of the bash manpage or a big ole tarball. :-)
> Regards, G.S.
--
.
--- Jiri Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Stefan Nobis:
> > Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than
> about 40-80KB without
> > being asked to do so and without asking the
> recipient is not very nice
> > and i would call it an offence.
>
> Your point being?
>
> Everyone kno
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:10:08 +1000 (EST), Jiri Baum wrote:
>Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB
>(or at least everyone that's read RFC 1855). Everyone knows you shouldn't
>send large amounts of unsolicited informati
Steve Lamb:
> > Ohh... You mean make it easy for idiot users to send large
> > attachments through a medium that wasn't designed for it, shouldn't be
> > used in that manner, and causes more problems than is needed with each
> > step of the way.
> > If I were to do it I'd have the email cl
Hello,
Stefan Nobis:
> Do you get the point? To send emails bigger than about 40-80KB without
> being asked to do so and without asking the recipient is not very nice
> and i would call it an offence.
Your point being?
Everyone knows that you shouldn't in general send files over about 50 KB
(or
On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 10:43:00AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> But if you are so happy about big emails, what about sending you the
> X11 sources? Without asking you about sending it. Will you be happy
> about that?
If it is solicited, just fine.
What is your point? I never claimed unsolicited a
On 3 Apr 1999, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> I get from time to time mails from friends and even from people i
> don't know with attachments some times greater than 1MB. And i'm
> always very angry about it, cause i do pay for my telphone connection
> (4 minutes costs me 12 german Pfennige, about 0,07US$)
Hi,
Wouldn't it be nice if POP mail boxes could be set to
automatically bounce messages over a certain size as soon as they arrive at
the ISP :-) I doubt I'd get so many large attchments if I could do that,
actually it's only one person who regularly sends me large attachments and I'm
going to
st
Look up the DOMAIN of FRACTIONS---
DOM::FRACTIONS
Mark Phillips wrote:
>
> > I do my symbolic math with MuPAD 3.4 instead of MathCad 7.0 but I
> > must be dilusional there also.
>
> On a total tangent --- have you worked out a way of getting matrices
> with floating point arithmetic under MuPAD?
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The problem of (huge) attachments or huge mails in general is, that
>>> the recipient often never asked to get it, but the sender sended it
>>> without being asked to do.
Hamish> In the case of mailing list
Folks,
Once, there was a purpose to the thread given in the subject line,
and I am most grateful to the many people who made relevant comments
on my original query about the availability of user-desirable software for
Linux.
I shall collate these and pass them on; also, it would be seemly to
summ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:01:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>Then educate your users and have your users educate their friends not to
>send them large attachments that they don't really want. Change the
>technology to fix a people problem? Ugh.
Yes,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:57:48 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>Steve, your credibility would improve incredibly if you weren't so
>damn patronising.
I'm only patronizing to those who deserve it.
>> A local FTP client so the person can
On Fri, Apr 02, 1999 at 03:31:34PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Work Tech Support at an ISP for two weeks. You'll get sick of hearing
> from people who get 2-3Mb attachments from people which clogs their email
> until Admin gets in there to clear it out. When they hear what the
> attachment is,
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:41:47AM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hamish> reason); the technology should allow users to send huge email
> Hamish> attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be fixed.
>
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 12:41:20AM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:22:47 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> This is the proper thing to do since it then lets th
> The other problem that faces someone peeping over the hedge from M$
> Windows land is ``where to find the applications''. There aren't so many
> magazines reviewing Linux apps as there are reviewing M$ apps. If you
The magazines are paid for by the advertising. They will always concentrate
on c
> I do my symbolic math with MuPAD 3.4 instead of MathCad 7.0 but I
> must be dilusional there also.
On a total tangent --- have you worked out a way of getting matrices
with floating point arithmetic under MuPAD? I haven't been able to
find any in the documentation.
Cheers,
Mark.
_/~~
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:12:15 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>I thought the original comment was that in general people should not send
>large emails, but rather send URLs. This is in person to person email,
>not mailing lists.
And he did speak of th
-Original Message-
From: Robert V. MacQuarrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian-User-Mailing-List
Cc: BENJAMIN FARRELL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 March 1999 08:00
Subject: Re: [SuSE Linux] What DO you lose with Linux ???
>>> Heres a good point about linux, anyone fo
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 10:47:30PM +0200, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hamish> Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology
> Hamish> (within reason); the technology should allow users to send
> H
> So Hewson makes some good points. Linus still isn't ready for the
> desktop, at least for the masses. But it will be Tomorrow. So stay
> tuned
I agree -- a lot of his points, particularly about the lack of mainstream
apps, are valid. I'd also like to see more hardware support for odd-bal
See bug #274960375892 filed against 'car'.
Stefan Nobis wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hamish> Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology
> Hamish> (within reason); the technology should allow users to sen
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> Wrong solution. Users should not have to adapt to technology
Hamish> (within reason); the technology should allow users to send
Hamish> huge email attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be
Hami
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> suse-linux-e@suse.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Date: 28 March 1999 21:23
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hamish Moffatt
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hamish> reason); the technology should allow users to send huge email
Hamish> attachments if they need to. Otherwise it should be fixed.
OK, but then the user should be prepared to pay for it!
And often people
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
[snippage]
> Most, if not all ISPs give people space for the storage of incoming mail,
> web pages and anonymous FTP. This is exactly what I was refering to when I
> wrote my message to Hamish and is also the exact reason why large attachments
> are considered a DoS. Th
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
