Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?

To:	lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?
From:	simon <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:48:23 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Joseph Mack wrote:

> 
> Interesting domain name :-)
> 

Only registered it for a email address. Got tired of being
some-incomprehenisble-string@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Plus it's handy when job hunting, I've never had to repeat it to
anybody over the phone yet.

Simon.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, (continued) Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Joseph Mack Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Scott Jones Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Joseph Mack Message not available Message not available Message not available is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Joseph Mack Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Horms Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Julian Anastasov Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Joseph Mack Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Joseph Mack Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, simon Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Joseph Mack Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, simon <= Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Joseph Mack Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Scott Jones

Previous by Date:	RE: File descriptor leak with RH6.1, simon
Next by Date:	Re: File descriptor leak with RH6.1, simon
Previous by Thread:	Re: is SMP 0.2.11-2.4.3 OK?, Joseph Mack
Next by Thread:	Re: Newbie: LVS-DR on 2.4.3, Joseph Mack
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]