Artur Jachacy wrote:
Well that's reason enough for me! UUCP should be good enough for all of
you, with your newfangled NNTP and HTTP and stuff. And man, am I angry
that my ISP turned off telnet in favor of some upstart protocol called
SHH or something ;-)
So, I take it you're prepared to
Hi Steve, *,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:11:46AM +0100, Steve Davies wrote:
> On 7/11/06, jef_e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Artur Jachacy wrote:
> >> Charles Kerr wrote:
> >>> Can anyone think of a reason for Pan to /not/ behave that way?
> >
> >> Because that's not how it's been done. That shoul
On 7/11/06, jef_e <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Artur Jachacy wrote:
> Charles Kerr wrote:
>> Can anyone think of a reason for Pan to /not/ behave that way?
> Because that's not how it's been done. That should be reason enough.
:) I can kind of agree with the sentiment...
In fact I think that th
Artur Jachacy wrote:
> Charles Kerr wrote:
>> Can anyone think of a reason for Pan to /not/ behave that way?
> Because that's not how it's been done. That should be reason enough.
Well that's reason enough for me! UUCP should be good enough for all of
you, with your newfangled NNTP and HTTP and
Hi *,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 07:28:05PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Charles Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 10 Jul 2006
> 11:52:14 -0500:
>
> > In http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/pan-users/2006-07/msg00040.html I
> > asked for suggestions on user-frien
