Mike Miller wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Chad Walstrom wrote: [snipped] > My mistake. It started out with what he called "flamebait" about MUAs and > the rest of the message looked like a horrible mess in pine for some > reason. I just found it here... > > http://archives.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/2006-June/050067.html > > ...and read it fully (and it doesn't look messed up there, so I guess pine > had a problem with it). Here is my summary of what happened: > > (1) a message from a yahoo.com email account sent malware to the list > (2) people let themselves be infected by this malware > (3) newly infected people sent more spam to the list > (4) TCLUG members decided to blame yahoo.com for this > (5) after a vote, yahoo.com was then banned from TCLUG list > > In other words, there was no good reason to ban yahoo.com in the first > place. In case I am misunderstood, I should point out that I am not using > Yahoo.com. I use Pine on Solaris, so I don't really care about the yahoo > issue but I think it is unfair and unhelpful to single out one mail source > based on a single email from 5 years ago. *shrug* - seems akin to about 80% of the responses i've seen to things on this list. i'll dutifully point out that the SNR has improved considerably over the past year or so. e.g.: someone lofts a query as to why something doesn't work under distribution X, and the response is a flood of messages about how they should really be using distribution Y with the purple colored patch kit and the lime flavored frannistan. seriously, are you really all that surprised by heavy handed responses to things? ;-) [snipped] -- steve ulrich sulrich at botwerks.org PGP: 8D0B 0EE9 E700 A6CF ABA7 AE5F 4FD4 07C9 133B FAFC