[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Mailing list question

Joe Van Dyk

1/3/2006 9:15:00 PM

I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
a way to do it. Any ideas?


12 Answers

Joe Van Dyk

1/3/2006 9:47:00 PM

0

On 1/3/06, Lyle Johnson <lyle.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
> > already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
> > a way to do it. Any ideas?
>
> Can you not just set up a Gmail filter on e-mails from
> "joevandyk@gmail.com" and to "ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org"?

Oh, yeah, probably. *blinks dumbly*


james_b

1/3/2006 9:50:00 PM

0

Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
> already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
> a way to do it. Any ideas?

Tell GMail not to show you the copy?

James

--

http://www.ru... - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.c... - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rub... - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jame... - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30seco... - Building Better Tools


Joe Van Dyk

1/3/2006 10:26:00 PM

0

On 1/3/06, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
> Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
> > already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
> > a way to do it. Any ideas?
>
> Tell GMail not to show you the copy?

I was hoping there was some option (like on the Rails mailing list)
that you can set to not send yourself copies of messages that you send
to the list.


Gregory Brown

1/3/2006 10:29:00 PM

0

On 1/3/06, Lyle Johnson <lyle.johnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can you not just set up a Gmail filter on e-mails from
> "joevandyk@gmail.com" and to "ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org"?

This works but keep in mind it'll trash your message as soon as you send it

Ross Bamford

1/3/2006 10:39:00 PM

0

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:14:58 -0000, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
> already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
> a way to do it. Any ideas?
>
>

Try sending a message to ruby-talk-ctl@ruby-lang.org with:

skip

in the *body*. Looks like that might work.

--
Ross Bamford - rosco@roscopeco.remove.co.uk

Ross Bamford

1/3/2006 10:42:00 PM

0

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:14:58 -0000, Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'd like to not receive the email that I send to the list (gmail
> already shows the sent version). I snooped around, but couldn't find
> a way to do it. Any ideas?
>

Oops, disregard my silly suggestion. *sorry*

--
Ross Bamford - rosco@roscopeco.remove.co.uk

O

9/1/2010 12:10:00 AM

0

In article
<16fb87f2-adbb-42e7-a1a1-00cfc66eca60@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
ivanmaxim <ivanmaxim1@gmail.com> wrote:

> > A million bucks is probably Q-tip money for Rupert Murdoch. ?There
> > isn't enough money in the world to buy Fox. ?Murdoch goes for the
> > ratings - he did in his paper, he's doing it here. ?He knows what
> > sells, and he sells it.
> >
> > -Owen- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But doesn't Murdoch already call the shots at Fox???? I thought that
> was common knowledge. Wagner fan

I did not mean to suggest otherwise.

-Owen

ivanmaxim

9/1/2010 12:17:00 AM

0

On Aug 31, 7:51 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article
> <40873540-9068-48a8-8008-1b8a6c4f5...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> ivanmaxim <ivanmax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I made a point of watching FOX News for three weeks and then MSNBC for
> > three weeks to compare and to say that Fox is no more baised than
> > MSNBC is something I personally did not witness. I saw Rachel Maddow
> > slam Obama about as much as she praised him and Olberman also would
> > complain about Obama though not as much. I found Maddow to be the more
> > fair of the two. But the difference I usually saw was that Fox would
> > run with whatever rumor was currently alive and then MSNBC would check
> > the rumor against facts and also point out inconsistencies between
> > what the Fox commentators said now and in the past . As for the Fox
> > pundits - O'Reilly gives the best impression but man he can be a
> > terrible bully when someone is on who doesn't agree with him. I don't
> > give a rats ass how hard Hannity works -he said some of the spot on
> > stupidest things I have ever heard - strident and unyielding I am
> > amazed he has any clout whatsoever - I heard him say that sometimes he
> > doesn't think before he opens his trap - its nice to say that but it
> > doesn't seem to stop him. For sheer ignorance and humor Fox and
> > Friends in the morning is priceless - I would watch with a mixture of
> > horror and glee - the woman may be intelligent but they give the
> > collective impression that if you add up their IQs you still won't get
> > to three digits Didn't FOX just get some million dollar donation from
> > some Republican organizaation
>
> A million bucks is probably Q-tip money for Rupert Murdoch.  There
> isn't enough money in the world to buy Fox.  Murdoch goes for the
> ratings - he did in his paper, he's doing it here.  He knows what
> sells, and he sells it.
>
> -Owen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually I had it reversed - Murdochs Newscorp (of which Fox news is a
media part) gave one million dollars to the Republican party - so i
don't think it takes a leap of faith to figure out how the "news' on
Fox will be slanted. And thats OK - but its important for viewers to
know that the idea they will get balanced coverage on Fox should not
be taken too seriously. My own perception is that the coverage is
hardly balanced and far worse than MSNBC but hey thats just me.
wagner fan

mark

9/1/2010 12:32:00 AM

0

On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:

> > Much of that is due to "Fox News," which manufactures footage and makes
> > up a story that matches what the conservatives want to believe. Surveys
> > and polls show that these viewers have widely mistaken beliefs about
> > current events. They claim not to editorialize in their actual news, but
> > since I've started exercising at the YMCA, I've had plenty of chance to
> > observe that they make everything fit the narrative they want to push.
>
> MSNBC is their less-watched counterpart.  

That's no indication of quality, but it is a clear indication that
conservatives watch Faux en masse, while Ds and Is split their viewing
time watching the legit cable networks like CNN & MSNBC, as well as
network news. As long as you're the media arm of a political party -
as Faux News is for the Rs - you're going to have an inroad into 25%
of the public that will watch only your "news" as it confirms all of
their fears, fantasies and prejudices.

When it comes to the big nightly news b'casts, no cable news channel
pulls anywhere near where the 3 big network channels pull. Faux News
pulls an average of 2.8 million viewers a night. Compare that to NBC,
which draws 7.2-million, CBS which draws 4.8 million and ABC which
draws 6.5 million (MSNBC and CNBC are subsidiaries of NBC, which add
about 1-million viewers to their daily totals).

Do the math, and you see that Faux draws just under 3-million viewers
a night in its nightly news slot while the other networks combined
draw about 20-million viewers a night. That means that only 12% of
viewers get their nightly news from Faux.

And, Faux has the OLDEST viewers of any of the cable or network news
channels.

Source for all the above is Nielsen.

Wake me when the Faux News revolution gets started...

O

9/1/2010 2:31:00 AM

0

In article
<a1ee4bc5-3175-4b86-a00a-c02727ec1839@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
ivanmaxim <ivanmaxim1@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Actually I had it reversed - Murdochs Newscorp (of which Fox news is a
> media part) gave one million dollars to the Republican party - so i
> don't think it takes a leap of faith to figure out how the "news' on
> Fox will be slanted. And thats OK - but its important for viewers to
> know that the idea they will get balanced coverage on Fox should not
> be taken too seriously. My own perception is that the coverage is
> hardly balanced and far worse than MSNBC but hey thats just me.
> wagner fan

The "news" per se is actually pretty balanced on Fox, but there's far
more opinion programs.

-Owen