Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #373012
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: owl - please test |
| Date | 2016-09-27 19:10 +0000 |
| Organization | O.W.L. |
| Message-ID | <ahjdgu00b3.auo@perch.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | <hqedneSB1IJa03XKnZ2dnUU7-budnZ2d@giganews.com> <D40DAFA4.7E786%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <hjasgue03.g@perch.invalid> <e4vu23Fd2baU4@mid.individual.net> |
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote: > On 2016-09-27, Octavian W. Lagrange <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote: >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> While the longer signature line is more secure, really a very short one >>> would accomplish the point of making it very hard for anyone to forge a post >>> AND would not clutter your posts as much. When many Usenet posts are short >>> having such a long "security block" makes little sense. >>> >> >> Moron. You could have just noted that you don't have a clue how >> any of this works, and left it at that. >> > It's a thread in COLA. Is there a single thread that the clown snit > doesn't contaminate? > > Oh yes, there is one. > The one where that person keeps posting open jobs. > Snit would never post in that thread because it involves WORK. Something > Michael Glasser has an aversion to. > http://i.imgur.com/H3torBM.gifv
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:25 +0000
Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 22:31 +0000
Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:44 +0000
Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:47 -0700
Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-25 23:06 +0000
Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 23:17 +0000
Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:45 -0700
Re: owl - please test Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 22:47 +0000
Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:02 +0000
Re: Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-09-28 19:46 -0400
Why are you responding to a question addressed to owl? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 17:14 -0700
Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-27 18:57 +0000
Re: owl - please test Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +0000
Re: owl - please test "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-09-27 19:10 +0000
Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:32 -0700
Re: owl - please test Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 12:46 -0700
Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:33 -0700
Re: owl - please test Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-09-27 12:01 -0700
csiph-web