Re: IMPORTANT: your message to html-tidy
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 02:33:44AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:11:51 +1000
> Craig Sanders <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:23:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > > Granted. But all of this came from Craig complaining that not feeding
> > > every message to SA let him process mail on his old machine.
> > i made no such complaint.
> *sigh* Now I remember why I tossed you into a nice killfile long ago and
> should have remade it the first time I saw your name appear on this list. You
> lie, badly.
you have a very interesting definition of "lie".
perhaps it's because you're not quite smart enough to remember the beginning
of an argument through to the end.
please add me to your killfile again. i'm getting seriously bored of you.
> >From Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030910002846.GM28807@taz.net.au>
> --- SNIP ---
> that first point about minimising the work that SA has to do is significant.
> by using other anti-spam methods as well as SA, i reduce that workload to
> approximately 1/67th of the total amount. this helps to keep my home mail
> server working (on obsolete hardware with very slow old disks) running under
> the unreasonable load that spam imposes on it....
> --- SNIP ---
> "this helps keep my home mail server working...running under the
> unreasonable load that spam imposes on it"
yeah, they really look like complaints....and nothing at all like a statement
of what i do and why i do it.