Wine

Dan Kegel · Post by **Dan Kegel** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:04 am

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MasterTH <[email protected]> wrote:

i'm working in a government. It's SD.NET. Nobody would know about it

Code:

linux-c5xy:~ # wine --version
wine-0.9.57

Please don't run wine as root.

Did you have a question?

Marcel W. Wysocki · Post by **Marcel W. Wysocki** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:14 am

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700
"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MasterTH <[email protected]> wrote:
i'm working in a government. It's SD.NET. Nobody would know about it

Code:

linux-c5xy:~ # wine --version
wine-0.9.57
Please don't run wine as root.

Did you have a question?

yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either

--
Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.pgp

James Hawkins · Post by **James Hawkins** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:16 am

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700
"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MasterTH <[email protected]> wrote:
i'm working in a government. It's SD.NET. Nobody would know about it

Code:

linux-c5xy:~ # wine --version
wine-0.9.57
Please don't run wine as root.

Did you have a question?
yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either

It's a reply from another thread.

--
James Hawkins

Zachary Goldberg · Post by **Zachary Goldberg** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:23 am

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM, James Hawkins <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700
"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MasterTH <[email protected]> wrote: Please don't run wine as root.

Did you have a question?
yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either

It's a reply from another thread.

--
James Hawkins

Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?

--
Zachary Goldberg
Computer Science & Engineering
Electrical Captain of Penn Electric Race Team
School of Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania

Post by **jnewman** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:21 pm

Zachary Goldberg wrote: Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?

No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the list). Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people to try to keep that to a minimum.

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:34 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 07:21:42 pm jnewman wrote:

Zachary Goldberg wrote:
Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?
No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the list).
Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people to try to
keep that to a minimum.

While we're at it, for the benefit of list users, could we get the forum to
put a real address in the From: instead of a nonfunctional boilerplate?

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4elDUCxPKZafKh0RAsE+AKDVAuJbbwykJZKkYK7HMKTbDuRZPACgjwWo
4Gcq/3Si/2sryFcz2EmHJEM=
=O4jB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:52 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 08:22:33 am Zachary Goldberg wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM, James Hawkins <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]>

wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700

"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:

<[email protected]> wrote:

yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either
It's a reply from another thread.

--
James Hawkins
Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?

If it is, a better fix would be to have the forum include proper email headers
like From: and esp. References:, since subject doesn't usually affect
threading but references do.

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4ft3UCxPKZafKh0RAm7zAJ0WqbDJQGjTtrHH66BAL+kG6CqLNACgpuG1
P9os03dZ6t2i6Xgug8caCfI=
=Aul7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:52 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 08:16:15 am James Hawkins wrote:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700

"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MasterTH <[email protected]>

wrote:

Please don't run wine as root.

Did you have a question?
yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either
It's a reply from another thread.

I'm not clear that it was, the subject line didn't have any Re: and there was
no references header.

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4fuCUCxPKZafKh0RAtY3AJ9QJRnYQbSJEft5xJl7L/v6W9hkmQCgt/Gn
O5HcrgegtkEp07CWXibX7/4=
=1/2S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

L. Rahyen · Post by **L. Rahyen** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:59 am

On Thursday March 20 2008 04:34:09 Paul Johnson wrote:

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 07:21:42 pm jnewman wrote:
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?
No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the list).
Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people to try to
keep that to a minimum.
While we're at it, for the benefit of list users, could we get the forum to
put a real address in the From: instead of a nonfunctional boilerplate?

No, e-mail address shouldn't be revealed to the public (and spam robots). And
if user wants his/her contacts published in the forum he/she can register
there and fill in corresponding fields and then continue to write to mailing
list (instead of forum). If user don't want his/her e-mail to be revealed in
the forum (or somewhere else) then this shouldn't happened.
Of course it is possible to modify e-mail somehow to prevent spam robots from
collecting the address so easily but protected e-mail and true e-mail are
different things (as I said above, true e-mail address never should be
revealed to the public).

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:36 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 10:57:54 pm L. Rahyen wrote:

On Thursday March 20 2008 04:34:09 Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 07:21:42 pm jnewman wrote:
Zachary Goldberg wrote: No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the
list). Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people
to try to keep that to a minimum.
While we're at it, for the benefit of list users, could we get the forum
to put a real address in the From: instead of a nonfunctional
boilerplate?
No, e-mail address shouldn't be revealed to the public (and spam robots).
And if user wants his/her contacts published in the forum he/she can
register there and fill in corresponding fields and then continue to write
to mailing list (instead of forum). If user don't want his/her e-mail to be
revealed in the forum (or somewhere else) then this shouldn't happened.
Of course it is possible to modify e-mail somehow to prevent spam robots
from collecting the address so easily but protected e-mail and true e-mail
are different things (as I said above, true e-mail address never should be
revealed to the public).

Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's responsibility
not to accept spam in the first place.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4gXjUCxPKZafKh0RAqsSAJ9QK3CDO+hS7PogtFJeyRK3r6qE+wCgyeee
3aHyvQ5QeHO8ZrhIb7WiSIU=
=Gr93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alan McKinnon · Post by **Alan McKinnon** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:10 am

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 10:57:54 pm L. Rahyen wrote:

No, e-mail address shouldn't be revealed to the public (and spam
robots). And if user wants his/her contacts published in the forum
he/she can register there and fill in corresponding fields and then
continue to write to mailing list (instead of forum). If user don't
want his/her e-mail to be revealed in the forum (or somewhere else)
then this shouldn't happened. Of course it is possible to modify
e-mail somehow to prevent spam robots from collecting the address
so easily but protected e-mail and true e-mail are different things
(as I said above, true e-mail address never should be revealed to
the public).
Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's
responsibility not to accept spam in the first place.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

Make that "Matt Curtin considers Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful".
The contrary point of view is from Simon Hill:

http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

There is no RFC that mandates whether a list should munge or not and it
is up to list and mail admins to decide how they want to deal with the
issue as both camps have valid points and neither is a clear winner.

Personally, I agree with you and Matt, but your assertion that there is
a standard about this is disingenious and simply wrong.

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

L. Rahyen · Post by **L. Rahyen** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:13 am

fOn Thursday March 20 2008 06:36:17 Paul Johnson wrote:

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 10:57:54 pm L. Rahyen wrote:
On Thursday March 20 2008 04:34:09 Paul Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday 19 March 2008 07:21:42 pm jnewman wrote: While we're at it, for the benefit of list users, could we get the
forum to put a real address in the From: instead of a nonfunctional
boilerplate?
No, e-mail address shouldn't be revealed to the public (and spam
robots). And if user wants his/her contacts published in the forum he/she
can register there and fill in corresponding fields and then continue to
write to mailing list (instead of forum). If user don't want his/her
e-mail to be revealed in the forum (or somewhere else) then this
shouldn't happened. Of course it is possible to modify e-mail somehow to
prevent spam robots from collecting the address so easily but protected
e-mail and true e-mail are different things (as I said above, true e-mail
address never should be revealed to the public).
Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's
responsibility not to accept spam in the first place.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

I disagree with this article. I lost enough mail addresses in the past when
tried to use them "as is" without paying attention on how well they munged in
the archives or public web-pages; when I started to use my new address only in
limited number of "trusted" public places (and always check how well it is
munged in these "trusted" public places) the problem was "magically" solved.
To me it seems that author of that article simply don't imagine what does it
mean to receive dozens/hundreds of spam messages per day. And there is no
alternative solution(s) of any kind in the article, really. Author just
dislikes something (address munging), blame spammers and some users and
that's all.

Timeout · Post by **Timeout** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:05 am

There are some ways to hide addresses, yet revealing them. It's what we are doing on our own website.
Addresses are clear, yet unreadable on the source code. I do not however know whether this is possible on a mailer. From the day we started to encrypt only the source code for robots, our spam decreased by much, rest is caught by spam filters (keeping an address used secret for long is probably an utopia with all people not understanding what they are doing in adding you as recipient of mass mails)

felix · Post by **felix** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:13 am

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:51:58PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 08:16:15 am James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Marcel W. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:02:47 -0700

"Dan Kegel" <[email protected]> wrote:
wrote:
yeah to me the mail did not really seem like a question either
It's a reply from another thread.
I'm not clear that it was, the subject line didn't have any Re: and there was
no references header.

I've noticed that in certain cases the header "In-Reply-to" doesn't get
set by the mail2forum software. Why that happens though I haven't
spotted.

I did notice that this message was posted twice, so perhaps mail2forum
is not working correctly if the user set's the subject in the forum post
when replying and instead creates a new topic with that subject.

--
Darragh

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

felix · Post by **felix** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:22 am

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 09:21:42PM -0500, jnewman wrote:

Zachary Goldberg wrote:
Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
the forum? Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?

No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the list). Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people to try to keep that to a minimum.

Actually I think that Zachary might be correct. Since the mail that
started the new topic had the following in its headers
"X-Generated-By: M2F: www.mail2forum.com"

Which suggests that it came from the forum and not the mailing list.

Looks like mail2forum may not be handling the case where phpBB allows
users to set the subject on individual posts within a topic.

--
Darragh

"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:48 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 20 March 2008 02:05:04 am Timeout wrote:

There is some ways to hide addresses, yet revealing them. It's what we are
doing on our own website.

I'm suggesting that for the forum to be on a level playing feild with the
mailing list, forum users should have the same level of disclosure as the
mailing list and no less as a minimum.

Addresses are clear, yet unreadable on the source
code. I do not however know whether this is possible on a mailer.

It's not possible on a forum, either. If you can demunge it, spammers will,
too, eventually. It's a minor inconvenience for them, not the every-time
inconvenience for humans. There's no form of munging that does not
annoyingly hinder legitimate use while doing less than nothing to combat the
real problem. Munging is not a solution, it's part of the problem.

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4nkHUCxPKZafKh0RArRnAJ9bzrY6ReIOnDqccIaB0nl6rr7WcwCgk3oD
QOBqhre9gdVni2fr9t/T8lQ=
=fNCV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:24 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 20 March 2008 01:11:45 am L. Rahyen wrote:

Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's
responsibility not to accept spam in the first place.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
I disagree with this article. I lost enough mail addresses in the past
when tried to use them "as is" without paying attention on how well they
munged in the archives or public web-pages; when I started to use my new
address only in limited number of "trusted" public places (and always check
how well it is munged in these "trusted" public places) the problem was
"magically" solved.

There's no such thing as losing an email address to spammers, unless you're
doing something truly stupid like using easy passwords so they can hijack
your account. There's plenty of tools to deal with the spam problem the
right way, there's really no legitimate excuse to deal with it the lazy,
ineffectual way.

To me it seems that author of that article simply don't
imagine what does it mean to receive dozens/hundreds of spam messages per
day. And there is no alternative solution(s) of any kind in the article,
really. Author just dislikes something (address munging), blame spammers
and some users and that's all.

Because there's a myriad of possible solutions, everything from choosing a
better email provider to hosting it yourself and rejecting spam at SMTP-time.
Many of us /do/ get that much spam, and don't appreciate the whining over
what is normally a reasonable expectation out of a mailing list.

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4nrEUCxPKZafKh0RAsumAKCYwNXQ4tLZzv2Nvo8hJD4gsesP/ACghU4J
g4+EZE6AVrA62pbRFFw/Hks=
=asRI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:29 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:13:13 am Darragh Bailey wrote:

I've noticed that in certain cases the header "In-Reply-to" doesn't get
set by the mail2forum software. Why that happens though I haven't
spotted.

I did notice that this message was posted twice, so perhaps mail2forum
is not working correctly if the user set's the subject in the forum post
when replying and instead creates a new topic with that subject.

With all the trouble this causes, I really have to wonder what the point of a
forum is when just a mailing list with a more traditional archive a-la
Debian's lists get the job done with fewer problems and less headaches for
ALL involved instead of just the bottom 5%...

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4nl4UCxPKZafKh0RArp9AJ9KnB3nrlLwFQPbHEixMHPV2yCvVACg0t4K
gUlQWq6mbmkgbwtxzT52spc=
=83Nn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alan McKinnon · Post by **Alan McKinnon** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:57 am

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:

On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:13:13 am Darragh Bailey wrote:
I've noticed that in certain cases the header "In-Reply-to" doesn't
get set by the mail2forum software. Why that happens though I
haven't spotted.

I did notice that this message was posted twice, so perhaps
mail2forum is not working correctly if the user set's the subject
in the forum post when replying and instead creates a new topic
with that subject.
With all the trouble this causes, I really have to wonder what the
point of a forum is when just a mailing list with a more traditional
archive a-la Debian's lists get the job done with fewer problems and
less headaches for ALL involved instead of just the bottom 5%...

I can see why forums exist - n00bs like them, it's a familiar interface
in a browser and the fact that it's about a gazillion times slower and
harder to work than an archived mailing list is lost on them. Well,
that's just the way that is.

Mailing lists - we know 'em and love 'em. Nuff said.

The bit I don't get is interfacing the two. It's like interfacing a
brothel with a sex-education class - superficially similar but when you
look closer you see they actually have nothing in common...

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

James Hawkins · Post by **James Hawkins** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:39 pm

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 20 March 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thursday 20 March 2008 04:13:13 am Darragh Bailey wrote:
I've noticed that in certain cases the header "In-Reply-to" doesn't
get set by the mail2forum software. Why that happens though I
haven't spotted.

I did notice that this message was posted twice, so perhaps
mail2forum is not working correctly if the user set's the subject
in the forum post when replying and instead creates a new topic
with that subject.
With all the trouble this causes, I really have to wonder what the
point of a forum is when just a mailing list with a more traditional
archive a-la Debian's lists get the job done with fewer problems and
less headaches for ALL involved instead of just the bottom 5%...
I can see why forums exist - n00bs like them, it's a familiar interface
in a browser and the fact that it's about a gazillion times slower and
harder to work than an archived mailing list is lost on them. Well,
that's just the way that is.

Mailing lists - we know 'em and love 'em. Nuff said.

The bit I don't get is interfacing the two. It's like interfacing a
brothel with a sex-education class - superficially similar but when you
look closer you see they actually have nothing in common...

If they weren't linked, all of us ML users would never get over to the
forum to help exactly the type of people that need our help.

--
James Hawkins

Alan McKinnon · Post by **Alan McKinnon** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:30 pm

On Thursday 20 March 2008, James Hawkins wrote:

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Alan McKinnon

The bit I don't get is interfacing the two. It's like interfacing
a brothel with a sex-education class - superficially similar but
when you look closer you see they actually have nothing in
common...
If they weren't linked, all of us ML users would never get over to
the forum to help exactly the type of people that need our help.

Easily fixed. The ML users that wish to assist on the forum register on
the forum and visit the forum frequently. Use a bookmark if you forget.

How many more "DO NOT RUN WINE AS ROOT" messages must get past my kill
file before I decide it simply isn't worth it anymore and unsubscribe?

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Dan Kegel · Post by **Dan Kegel** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:33 pm

Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

How many more "DO NOT RUN WINE AS ROOT" messages must get past my kill
file before I decide it simply isn't worth it anymore and unsubscribe?

I'm writing a patch that will enforce this, so perhaps
this issue will subside soonish.

James Hawkins · Post by **James Hawkins** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:42 pm

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 20 March 2008, James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Alan McKinnon

The bit I don't get is interfacing the two. It's like interfacing
a brothel with a sex-education class - superficially similar but
when you look closer you see they actually have nothing in
common...
If they weren't linked, all of us ML users would never get over to
the forum to help exactly the type of people that need our help.
Easily fixed. The ML users that wish to assist on the forum register on
the forum and visit the forum frequently. Use a bookmark if you forget.

How many more "DO NOT RUN WINE AS ROOT" messages must get past my kill
file before I decide it simply isn't worth it anymore and unsubscribe?

No, we shouldn't be forced to use the forum (and we won't, as
witnessed by the fact that we never went to the forum before the
linkup), and forum users shouldn't be forced to use the ML. That is
exactly why the linkup was created in the first place. If you can't
deal with handling new users, filter wine-users or unregister
yourself.

--
James Hawkins

Alan McKinnon · Post by **Alan McKinnon** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:24 pm

On Thursday 20 March 2008, James Hawkins wrote:

or unregister
yourself.

I'm tempted, but instead I shall not give you the pleasure.

Why yes, these forum issues DO tick me off, thank you for asking.

This used to be a really nice place. Frankly, I'm affronted by your
assertions that your agreement to link the forum and mailing list is
simply the way it shall now be and those of us who are not in agreement
should simply fsck off.

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:03 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 20 March 2008 10:38:45 am James Hawkins wrote:

The bit I don't get is interfacing the two. It's like interfacing a
brothel with a sex-education class - superficially similar but when you
look closer you see they actually have nothing in common...
If they weren't linked, all of us ML users would never get over to the
forum to help exactly the type of people that need our help.

Actually, that might be a Good Thing. When was the last time someone who
glibly begged for a magic fix, yet couldn't form a smart question[1] posted
via the mailing list?

[1] http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

- --
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH4sMWUCxPKZafKh0RAt+QAJ9PAdzqyDCzVS0r81UtZL2dxu5UowCgsJzz
cF/t9aZkzvrmDOSAW5GGUhg=
=Jf9W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----