On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Strata Rose Chalup wrote:
--]Having a list at e-groups is just plain lame, and I can't understand how
--]it's gotten so legitimized. It basically says "I have either no clue how
--]to maintain something as basic as a mailing list, or no net access that
--]will let me run one, or both."
Yea, so I guese Im lame. But my mailing lists dont crud up inboxes like
fork does with bounces bonk and responder crap. I have easy control of
the whole damn thing. I also have groupabled databases, file sections
and a few other gizzmos without having to run a server, beg for server
I guese Ill let the 300 or so other people who are on my mailing lists
know you consider them so lame. Ill let em know all the stuff we are doing
is null and void (hi void) cause the lame police deemed us so.
Lame lame lame, meanwhile, we are getting stuff done....and fork sputters
out four pieces of crap for every one i send out...talk about being
Also, if your worried about spam harvesting, does egroups force you to use
only one emal address. For some one so clued in you seem to over look
that, and also that even fork is spamscanable , so if your not using
protective means you are...whats the word...oh yea...lame
There are those who can use a system and then there are the lame police.
Have a lamey day..
(awaits the four crapped out responses emails)
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.org---===---]
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:54 PDT