sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "David Kowis" <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
- To: <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .
- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:44:25 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sm-discuss-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:sm-discuss-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jason Flatt
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:27 PM
> To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .
>
> On Saturday 19 June 2004 7:05 am, Jason Flatt wrote:
> >
> > It seems we have two ways of doing it: 1) the entire e-mail
> address as one
> > long word with the @ and the . converted to something
> like_AT_ and _DOT_
> > (as Andrew as done for his e-mail addresses -- I followed
> his lead),
>
> Done! If I made any mistakes, or if you really like all that
> extra e-mail,
> let me know or feel free to change it yourself. :^)
My only thought is, will this be sufficient? I know that, as a programmer,
that's really easy to get around
If I find something similar to _AT_ or _DOT_ then I should replace it with @
or . It may be perfectly fine, but like I said, it's my only thought :)
>
> > [0]
> http://wiki.sourcemage.org/index.php?page=The+Source+Mage+Developers
>
> --
> Jason Flatt (jason @ flattfamily . com)
> Father of five (http://www.flattfamily.com/)
> Linux user (http://www.sourcemage.org/)
> IRC Nick: Oadae Channels: #sourcemage, #lvlug Server:
> irc.freenode.net
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.12
> GCS/IT d(-) s+:- a>++++ C++$(+++) UL++++ P(+) L+++ E- W++ N+@
> o? K? w-- O?
> M-- V PS- PE+ Y+ PGP@ t 5+ X R tv--() b+@ DI+@ D+++ G e h----
> r+++ y++++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
-
[SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Arwed von Merkatz, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Eric Sandall, 06/19/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/19/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Paul, 06/20/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Seth Alan Woolley, 06/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Robin, 06/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Seth Alan Woolley, 06/21/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Paul, 06/20/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.