On 8/8/99 12:03 PM, Nathan Brindle <[log in to unmask]> wrote...
>On Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:15:26 -0500 Adam Bailey said:
>>On 8/7/99 7:59 AM, Pete Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote...
>>
>>>At 11:32 08/06/1999 Friday , Paul Franco wrote:
>>>
>>> >        quiet del * [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>Due to misconfigured (on non-configured) customer clients' mail programs,
>>>you might *also* do a
>>>
>>>quiet del * useremail@*.domain.com
>>
>>Or use useremail@*domain.com, which will catch them both.
>
>That's dangerous.  In some cases you might delete someone you didn't
>intend to delete with that construction.  I admit we're probably talking
>extreme cases, but the fact remains that a delete for joe@*soft.com would
>not only delete [log in to unmask] and [log in to unmask], but also [log in to unmask],
>[log in to unmask], et cetera ad nauseum...when you do that sort of wildcard
>delete you might want to try it with the (TEST option first.

Agreed. And before I sound completely irresponsible, I'd never do that
with a really short, or othwise common domain ending (such as 'soft').


--
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
[log in to unmask] | Finger/Web for PGP
[log in to unmask] | http://www.lull.org/adam/