From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:10:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [OT] Testing
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:36:35AM -0700, Matthew L. Seidl wrote: > O.k. List seems to still be passing traffic. Let me know if the spam Many thanks!
From: Matthew Seidl <seidl@v...>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:29:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [OT] Testing
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:10:22 +0000, Roger Burton West writes: Lets see if it actually fixed it. In theory I've changed the address they were using to something less obvious, and made it much harder to extract the new address from outbound emails. Now just need to verify this by not having something leak through for a while.
From: Frits Kuijlman <frits@k...>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 22:01:13 +0100
Subject: Re: [OT] Testing
> Matthew L. Seidl wrote: You should be fine as long as you remove the header before putting messages into the archive. I don't think it is easy to guess the new name I see now in the header.
From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:09:24 +0000
Subject: Re: [OT] Testing
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:01:13PM +0100, Frits Kuijlman wrote: > You should be fine as long as you remove the header before putting Sigh... OK, I'll see about rewriting the archive system to strip out headers. Can't promise I'll get to it immediately, though. R
From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:49:27 +0000
Subject: Re: [OT] Testing
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:09:24PM +0000, Roger Burton West wrote: > Sigh... OK, I'll see about rewriting the archive system to strip out Bother Perl modules which don't do what they say they do in the docs. Future archived messages (including this one) should be Received-header free, though. R