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/