|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 251 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 84 of 251:
| 
Jan 13 23:07 UTC 2003 |
Pine bombed out on me earlier with this message:
ld.so: call to undefined procedure _sigpause from 0xef785528
|
keesan
|
|
response 85 of 251:
|
Jan 14 02:11 UTC 2003 |
I get that as many as three times a day when I try to send with Pine.
|
keesan
|
|
response 86 of 251:
|
Jan 14 19:19 UTC 2003 |
Today someone phoned and asked if I had received email sent yesterday (way
under 70K) and I had not, nor have I ever received two test emails sent from
myself at a free webmail account to keesan@grex.org and keesan@cyberspace.org
two days ago. I asked them both to change their settings to wait longer
before timing out - what is the proper terminology for this?
|
davel
|
|
response 87 of 251:
|
Jan 15 01:44 UTC 2003 |
Dialin doesn't seem to be working - I get fast, funny-sounding busy signals.
Dialing 5041, for what it's worth.
|
aruba
|
|
response 88 of 251:
|
Jan 15 03:38 UTC 2003 |
I'm dialed in now, and it seems OK.
|
hash
|
|
response 89 of 251:
|
Jan 16 21:18 UTC 2003 |
is someone going to answer the question about SSH Protocol Version 2?
I too am wondering why grex is still using version 1 only.
|
russ
|
|
response 90 of 251:
|
Jan 17 02:59 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes when logging in and typing ahead, login tells me
"You cannot change L$0" and gets my loginid wrong.
|
gull
|
|
response 91 of 251:
|
Jan 17 14:53 UTC 2003 |
I think this happens to me if I backspace one too many times at the
login prompt.
|
other
|
|
response 92 of 251:
|
Jan 17 16:15 UTC 2003 |
and to me if i accidentally pinky the tabkey
|
krj
|
|
response 93 of 251:
|
Jan 17 21:15 UTC 2003 |
Polytarp, and other ids originating from the same address as polytarp,
is flooding crap into party and rendering it unusable.
Other ids include "tabs" and "jimt".
|
naftee
|
|
response 94 of 251:
|
Jan 18 03:56 UTC 2003 |
"Rendering it unusable"? Assuming it doesn't crash party (which I doubt it
would) haven't you heard of the :ignore command?
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 95 of 251:
|
Jan 18 04:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 96 of 251:
|
Jan 18 12:55 UTC 2003 |
The fact that there are defenses against rudeness is no excuse for
rudeness.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 97 of 251:
|
Jan 18 14:13 UTC 2003 |
Good line, John. It should be on a bumper sticker or coffee cup.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 98 of 251:
|
Jan 18 15:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 99 of 251:
|
Jan 18 15:50 UTC 2003 |
Wow. You are a major asshole! Happy?
|
russ
|
|
response 100 of 251:
|
Jan 18 18:14 UTC 2003 |
If polytarp is causing problems, why not drop packets from
his ISP's netblock and/or complain to his ISP?
|
polytarp
|
|
response 101 of 251:
|
Jan 18 19:27 UTC 2003 |
other, if that bored you, remember that the only ones who get bored are those
who are boring.
|
gull
|
|
response 102 of 251:
|
Jan 18 19:59 UTC 2003 |
Re #98: That was pointless.
Re #100: Blocking anyone's netblock should be a last resort, since it
can affect innocent parties who happen to use the same ISP.
|
russ
|
|
response 103 of 251:
|
Jan 18 23:34 UTC 2003 |
If the problems do not cease, I suggest we pursue civil or criminal
penalties against polytarp. See this:
http://www.cleveland.com/tech/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fbusiness%2F10
4288693631280.xml
|
jep
|
|
response 104 of 251:
|
Jan 18 23:54 UTC 2003 |
Polytarp is in Canada. Even if he was in Washtenaw County, Grex
doesn't have the resources to sue him. Ignore him.
|
tonster
|
|
response 105 of 251:
|
Jan 19 01:11 UTC 2003 |
why does nooone do anything to prevent people from being affected by
polytarps shit? Block his IP! You don't need to block his netblock.
scribble that stupid response above with the contents of
the /etc/passwd file. Why waste the bandwidth to download all that
shit when you're using backtalk or picospan? I really don't understand
why grex staff lets it continue. Grex is slow enough as it is.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 106 of 251:
|
Jan 19 02:06 UTC 2003 |
fag.
|
russ
|
|
response 107 of 251:
|
Jan 19 02:21 UTC 2003 |
Re #102: It would only be necessary to block the netblock until
the ISP or criminal authorities had taken action against the abuser.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 108 of 251:
|
Jan 19 02:22 UTC 2003 |
re #105: Staff could block his IP but if he's determined to be an obnoxious
twit (and all evidence indicates that he is..) he'd just come in from another
IP. And they could scribble his response, but that will just encourage him
to post it again, and again..
|
