Part 44 - Nov 22 2005

Old messages from osFree mailing list hosted by Yahoo!
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:24 pm

#1323 Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
2006 Jan 12 12:22 PM
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6025447.html
"
After initially rejecting patents on the
Windows file system, the Patent and
Trademark Office rules them valid.
"

Will this have any impact with HPFS since both
MS and IBM worked on it? (I read IBM pays royalty
to MS for use of HPFS).

TomLeeM

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Microsoft wins FAT patent

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:26 pm

#1324 Microsoft wins FAT patent
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
2006 Jan 12 12:20 PM
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/82088/micro ... atent.html
"
Microsoft has won its battle with the
US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO)
over its attempt to patent the File Allocation
Table or FAT, which formed the basis of the
management of disk storage in the days of MS-DOS.
"
Will this affect OSFree?

TomLeeM

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:28 pm

#1325 Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Kenn Yuill
2006 Jan 12 1:10 PM
Well, other companies with vested interests and governments should
fight this ruling, as ISTR that Digital Research used the FAT system in
their later versions of DR-DOS. If this usage was allowed by Microsoft
without protest, it should invalidate their claim IMHO, but I am not a
patent attorney.
Also, my experience with the PTO in the 1980's was quite mixed in
their failure to recognise 'prior knowledge in the art'. In my case, it
involved pyrotechnic formulations.


Tom Lee Mullins wrote as follows on 12/01/06 15:22:

> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6025447.html
> "
> After initially rejecting patents on the
> Windows file system, the Patent and
> Trademark Office rules them valid.
> "
>
> Will this have any impact with HPFS since both
> MS and IBM worked on it? (I read IBM pays royalty
> to MS for use of HPFS).

--
Aloha,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
Wise sayings often fall on barren ground;
but a kind word is never thrown away. - Sir Arthur Helps
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.059 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:32 pm

#1326 Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
Jan 12 4:30 PM
Kenn Yuill wrote:

> Well, other companies with vested interests and governments should
>fight this ruling, as ISTR that Digital Research used the FAT system in
>their later versions of DR-DOS. If this usage was allowed by Microsoft
>without protest, it should invalidate their claim IMHO, but I am not a
>patent attorney.
> Also, my experience with the PTO in the 1980's was quite mixed in
>their failure to recognise 'prior knowledge in the art'. In my case, it
>involved pyrotechnic formulations.
>
>
>
>

"IBM said it is working with the Patent Office and others to improve the way patent applications are reviewed."
http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =175803281
One can hope that IBM's review of patents can prevent or
be used to stop such things.

TomLeeM / BigWarpGuy * * http://tomleem.homestead.com * *
* * Director of Communications - * - Linkmaster * * * * * * *
* * OS/2 Warp - eComStation Org * * OS/2 World * * * * * * *
* * http://www.os2ecs.org * * http://www.os2world.com * *
* * Supporting Past OS/2 Users and Future eCS Users * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:33 pm

#1327 Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Kenn Yuill
2006 Jan 12 5:37 PM
Hopefully, IBM's efforts bear fruit but they would need some allies
such as Oracle and others in diverse fields in order to counterbalance
the influence of powerful corporate predators.
Of course, there should be revisions to the laws in cases of hostile
takeovers just for the sake of acquiring patent rights. In such cases,
these rights should be reduced to a tenth of their current length in
order to discourage such actions, so smart companies can survive in this
world of stodgy conglomerates.


Tom Lee Mullins wrote as follows on 12/01/06 19:30:

>Kenn Yuill wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Well, other companies with vested interests and governments should
>>>fight this ruling, as ISTR that Digital Research used the FAT system in
>>>their later versions of DR-DOS. If this usage was allowed by Microsoft
>>>without protest, it should invalidate their claim IMHO, but I am not a
>>>patent attorney.
>>> Also, my experience with the PTO in the 1980's was quite mixed in
>>>their failure to recognise 'prior knowledge in the art'. In my case, it
>>>involved pyrotechnic formulations.
>>>
>>
>>
>"IBM said it is working with the Patent Office and others to improve the way patent applications are reviewed."
>http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =175803281
>One can hope that IBM's review of patents can prevent or
>be used to stop such things.
>

--
Aloha,
Kenn
_____________________________________________________________________
Always act as if life is a joyous journey. - Kenn Yuill
__________ A Quote for Today __________
Those who dream by day are cognizant of many things
which escape those who dream only by night.
- Edgar Allan Poe
_____________________________________________________________________
* TagZilla 0.059 * <http://tagzilla.mozdev.org>

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:35 pm

#1328 Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Davey Brain
2006 Jan 15 3:22 AM
Kenn Yuill wrote:

> Well, other companies with vested interests and governments should
> fight this ruling, as ISTR that Digital Research used the FAT system in
> their later versions of DR-DOS. If this usage was allowed by Microsoft
> without protest, it should invalidate their claim IMHO, but I am not a
> patent attorney.
> Also, my experience with the PTO in the 1980's was quite mixed in
> their failure to recognise 'prior knowledge in the art'. In my case, it
> involved pyrotechnic formulations.

Hi all,
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney of any sort; I'm a computer tech that
has had some sort of computer for about 27 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but but the 8" flexible disk drive (FDD) was
invented at IBM by Alan Shugart in 1967; in 1976, the 5 1/4" FDD was
developed by the same Alan Shugart for Wang Laboratories because they
wanted a smaller floppy drive to use with their desktop computers. If
I'm reading my history correctly I understand that by the mid-70's FDDs
used some file system very similar to the FAT system. Also, it is my
understanding that CP/M used a type of FAT file system by 1975 or 1976.
It seems this was part of the "prior art" argument for this case.

As far as whether M$ "thought up" the FAT file system in 1976 - well
that is plainly a lie. In fact M$ BOUGHT MS-DOS (called QDOS) in 1980
(and never did pay the full amount owed to Seattle Computer Products)
then re-released that as PC-DOS 1.0 with the launch of the first IBM PC
(see the MS-DOS history below). So this whole case is based on total BS.
This is just further proof that with enough money one can buy anyone in
the USA government.

And Tom, about your questions:

AFAIK JFS was fully developed by IBM for use in both AIX (IBM's UNIX)
and Warp Server for e-Business (WSeB) and then adapted for use in Warp
4.5 and Linux. It is NOT based on FAT So that is safe from M$ (although
that is part of the basis of the SCO-vs-IBM case).

HPFS was jointly developed by IBM (about 20%) and M$ (about 80%). NTFS
is HPFS with a few minor changes, hence NTFS reporting HPFS partitions
as "corrupted NTFS". There are many cross-licensing fees between IBM &
M$ in OS/2 and I don't know the details of the HPFS fees. As far as an
open-source HPFS that is a question for a patent attorney and I am not one.

It is my opinion that this case is NOT settled yet and that it will go
on for a long time. The patent was filed "retroactively" which is stupid
from the start. Plus there is just overwhelming evidence of prior art
and that any FAT patent is obvious due to the prior art. If, because of
making the proper payments to the proper people it is never overturned
then I say to just flick-off M$ and move to JFS on ALL storage even if
we have to develop a 12-bit JFS.

--------
From "DOS History" <http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/dos.htm#>
(watch for javascript pop-up ads):

1973
Gary Kildall writes a simple operating system in his PL/M language. He
calls it CP/M (Control Program/Monitor). (Control Program for Microcomputer)

1979
February
Apple Computer releases DOS 3.2.
July
Apple Computer releases DOS 3.2.1

1980
April
Tim Patterson begins writing an operating system for use with Seattle
Computer Products' 8086-based computer. Seattle Computer Products
decides to make their own disk operating system (DOS), due to delays by
Digital Research in releasing a CP/M-86 operating system.
August
QDOS 0.10 (Quick and Dirty Operating System) is shipped by Seattle
Computer Products. Even though it had been created in only two
man-months, the DOS worked surprisingly well. A week later, the EDLIN
line editor was created. EDLIN was supposed to last only six months,
before being replaced.
September
Tim Patterson shows Microsoft his 86-DOS, written for the 8086 chip.
October
Microsoft's Paul Allen contacts Seattle Computer Products' Tim
Patterson, asking for the rights to sell SCP's DOS to an unnamed client
(IBM). Microsoft pays less than US$100,000 for the right.
December
Seattle Computer Products renames QDOS to 86-DOS, releasing it as
version 0.3. Microsoft then bought non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS.

1981
February
MS-DOS runs for the first time on IBM's prototype microcomputer.
July
Microsoft buys all rights to DOS from Seattle Computer Products, and the
name MS-DOS is adopted.
August
IBM announces the IBM 5150 PC Personal Computer, featuring a 4.77-MHz
Intel 8088 CPU, 64KB RAM, 40KB ROM, one 5.25-inch floppy drive, and
PC-DOS 1.0 (Microsoft's MS-DOS), for US$3000.
--------
And from "MS-DOS History"
<http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml>

The history of MS-DOS is surprisingly long. It started off as QDOS
(Quick and Dirty Operating System) which was developed by Seattle
Computer Products to run on IBM's new PC. This list is fairly
comprehensive although a number of the more obscure versions of DOS have
been omitted.

Version Date Comments
1.0 1981 The original version of MS-DOS. This was a renamed version of
QDOS which had been purchased by an upstart company called Microsoft.
1.25 1982 This added support for double-sided disks. Previously the
disk had to be turned over to use the other side
2.0 1983 This added support for IBM's 10 MB hard disk, directories and
double-density 5.25" floppy disks with capacities of 360 KB
2.11 1983 Support for foreign and extended characters was added.
3.0 1984 Support for high-density (1.2 MB) floppy disks and 32 MB hard
disks was added.
3.1 1984 Network support was added.
3.3 1987 This release was written to take advantage of IBM's PS/2
computer range. It added support for high density 3.5" floppy disks,
more than one partition on hard disks (allowing use of disks bigger than
32 MB) and code pages.
4.0 1988 This version provided XMS support, support for partitions on
hard disks up to 2 GB and a graphical shell. It also contained a large
number of bugs and many programs refused to run on it.
4.01 1989 The bugs in version 4.0 were fixed.
5.0 1991 This was a major upgrade. It allowed parts of DOS to load
itself in the high memory area and certain device drivers and TSRs to
run in the unused parts of the upper memory area between 640K and 1024K.
This version also added support for IBM's new 2.88 MB floppy disks. An
improved BASIC interpreter and text editor were included, as was a disk
cache, an undelete utility and a hard-disk partition-table backup
program. After the problems with MS-DOS 4, it also provided a utility to
make programs think they were running on a different version of MS-DOS.
5.0a 1992/3 This was a minor bug fix which dealt with possibly
catastrophic problems with UNDELETE and CHKDSK.
6.0 1993 This was a catch-up with Novell's DR-DOS 6. It added a
disk-compression utility called DoubleSpace, a basic anti-virus program
and a disk defragmenter. It also finally included a MOVE command, an
improved backup program, MSBACKUP and multiple boot configurations.
Memory management was also improved by the addition of MEMMAKER. A
number of older utilities, such as JOIN and RECOVER were removed. The
DOS Shell was released separately as Microsoft felt that there were too
many disks.
6.2 1993 Extra security was built into DoubleSpace following
complaints of data loss. A new disk checker, SCANDISK, was also
introduced, as well as improvements to DISKCOPY and SmartDrive.
6.21 1993 Following legal action by Stac Electronics, Microsoft
released this version which had DoubleSpace removed. It came with a
voucher for an alternative disk compression program.
6.22 1994 Microsoft licensed a disk-compression package called
DoubleDisk from VertiSoft Systems and renamed it DriveSpace, which was
included in this version.
7.0 1995 This version is part of the original version of Windows 95.
It provides support for long filenames when Windows is running, but
removes a large number of utilities, some of which are on the Windows 95
CD in the \other\oldmsdos directory.
7.1 1997 This version is part of OEM Service Release 2 and later of
Windows 95. The main change is support for FAT 32 hard disks, a more
efficient and robust way of storing data on large drives.
--------

WarpDavey
--
Davey Brain
All I really want is a president who is smarter than I am...

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities." - Voltaire

This OS/2 uptime is 0 d 13 h 30 m 33 seconds

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:47 pm

#1329 Re: [osFree] Microsoft's file system patent upheld
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
2006 Jan 16 2:37 PM
Davey Brain wrote:

> Kenn Yuill wrote:
> > Well, other companies with vested interests and governments should
> > fight this ruling, as ISTR that Digital Research used the FAT system in
> > their later versions of DR-DOS. If this usage was allowed by Microsoft
> > without protest, it should invalidate their claim IMHO, but I am not a
> > patent attorney.
> > Also, my experience with the PTO in the 1980's was quite mixed in
> > their failure to recognise 'prior knowledge in the art'. In my
> case, it
> > involved pyrotechnic formulations.
>
> Hi all,
> Disclaimer: I am not an attorney of any sort; I'm a computer tech that
> has had some sort of computer for about 27 years.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but but the 8" flexible disk drive (FDD) was
> invented at IBM by Alan Shugart in 1967; in 1976, the 5 1/4" FDD was
> developed by the same Alan Shugart for Wang Laboratories because they
> wanted a smaller floppy drive to use with their desktop computers. If
> I'm reading my history correctly I understand that by the mid-70's FDDs
> used some file system very similar to the FAT system. Also, it is my
> understanding that CP/M used a type of FAT file system by 1975 or 1976.
> It seems this was part of the "prior art" argument for this case.
>
> As far as whether M$ "thought up" the FAT file system in 1976 - well
> that is plainly a lie. In fact M$ BOUGHT MS-DOS (called QDOS) in 1980
> (and never did pay the full amount owed to Seattle Computer Products)
> then re-released that as PC-DOS 1.0 with the launch of the first IBM PC
> (see the MS-DOS history below). So this whole case is based on total BS.
> This is just further proof that with enough money one can buy anyone in
> the USA government.
>
> And Tom, about your questions:
>
> AFAIK JFS was fully developed by IBM for use in both AIX (IBM's UNIX)
> and Warp Server for e-Business (WSeB) and then adapted for use in Warp
> 4.5 and Linux. It is NOT based on FAT So that is safe from M$ (although
> that is part of the basis of the SCO-vs-IBM case).
>
> HPFS was jointly developed by IBM (about 20%) and M$ (about 80%). NTFS
> is HPFS with a few minor changes, hence NTFS reporting HPFS partitions
> as "corrupted NTFS". There are many cross-licensing fees between IBM &
> M$ in OS/2 and I don't know the details of the HPFS fees. As far as an
> open-source HPFS that is a question for a patent attorney and I am not
> one.
>
> It is my opinion that this case is NOT settled yet and that it will go
> on for a long time. The patent was filed "retroactively" which is stupid
> from the start. Plus there is just overwhelming evidence of prior art
> and that any FAT patent is obvious due to the prior art. If, because of
> making the proper payments to the proper people it is never overturned
> then I say to just flick-off M$ and move to JFS on ALL storage even if
> we have to develop a 12-bit JFS.
>
> --------
> From "DOS History" <http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/dos.htm#>
> (watch for javascript pop-up ads):
>
> 1973
> Gary Kildall writes a simple operating system in his PL/M language. He
> calls it CP/M (Control Program/Monitor). (Control Program for
> Microcomputer)
>
> 1979
> February
> Apple Computer releases DOS 3.2.
> July
> Apple Computer releases DOS 3.2.1
>
> 1980
> April
> Tim Patterson begins writing an operating system for use with Seattle
> Computer Products' 8086-based computer. Seattle Computer Products
> decides to make their own disk operating system (DOS), due to delays by
> Digital Research in releasing a CP/M-86 operating system.
> August
> QDOS 0.10 (Quick and Dirty Operating System) is shipped by Seattle
> Computer Products. Even though it had been created in only two
> man-months, the DOS worked surprisingly well. A week later, the EDLIN
> line editor was created. EDLIN was supposed to last only six months,
> before being replaced.
> September
> Tim Patterson shows Microsoft his 86-DOS, written for the 8086 chip.
> October
> Microsoft's Paul Allen contacts Seattle Computer Products' Tim
> Patterson, asking for the rights to sell SCP's DOS to an unnamed client
> (IBM). Microsoft pays less than US$100,000 for the right.
> December
> Seattle Computer Products renames QDOS to 86-DOS, releasing it as
> version 0.3. Microsoft then bought non-exclusive rights to market 86-DOS.
>
> 1981
> February
> MS-DOS runs for the first time on IBM's prototype microcomputer.
> July
> Microsoft buys all rights to DOS from Seattle Computer Products, and the
> name MS-DOS is adopted.
> August
> IBM announces the IBM 5150 PC Personal Computer, featuring a 4.77-MHz
> Intel 8088 CPU, 64KB RAM, 40KB ROM, one 5.25-inch floppy drive, and
> PC-DOS 1.0 (Microsoft's MS-DOS), for US$3000.
> --------
> And from "MS-DOS History"
> <http://www.nukesoft.co.uk/msdos/dosversions.shtml>
>
> The history of MS-DOS is surprisingly long. It started off as QDOS
> (Quick and Dirty Operating System) which was developed by Seattle
> Computer Products to run on IBM's new PC. This list is fairly
> comprehensive although a number of the more obscure versions of DOS have
> been omitted.
>
> Version Date Comments
> 1.0 1981 The original version of MS-DOS. This was a
> renamed version of
> QDOS which had been purchased by an upstart company called Microsoft.
> 1.25 1982 This added support for double-sided disks.
> Previously the
> disk had to be turned over to use the other side
> 2.0 1983 This added support for IBM's 10 MB hard disk,
> directories and
> double-density 5.25" floppy disks with capacities of 360 KB
> 2.11 1983 Support for foreign and extended characters was
> added.
> 3.0 1984 Support for high-density (1.2 MB) floppy disks
> and 32 MB hard
> disks was added.
> 3.1 1984 Network support was added.
> 3.3 1987 This release was written to take advantage of
> IBM's PS/2
> computer range. It added support for high density 3.5" floppy disks,
> more than one partition on hard disks (allowing use of disks bigger than
> 32 MB) and code pages.
> 4.0 1988 This version provided XMS support, support for
> partitions on
> hard disks up to 2 GB and a graphical shell. It also contained a large
> number of bugs and many programs refused to run on it.
> 4.01 1989 The bugs in version 4.0 were fixed.
> 5.0 1991 This was a major upgrade. It allowed parts of DOS
> to load
> itself in the high memory area and certain device drivers and TSRs to
> run in the unused parts of the upper memory area between 640K and 1024K.
> This version also added support for IBM's new 2.88 MB floppy disks. An
> improved BASIC interpreter and text editor were included, as was a disk
> cache, an undelete utility and a hard-disk partition-table backup
> program. After the problems with MS-DOS 4, it also provided a utility to
> make programs think they were running on a different version of MS-DOS.
> 5.0a 1992/3 This was a minor bug fix which dealt with
> possibly
> catastrophic problems with UNDELETE and CHKDSK.
> 6.0 1993 This was a catch-up with Novell's DR-DOS 6. It
> added a
> disk-compression utility called DoubleSpace, a basic anti-virus program
> and a disk defragmenter. It also finally included a MOVE command, an
> improved backup program, MSBACKUP and multiple boot configurations.
> Memory management was also improved by the addition of MEMMAKER. A
> number of older utilities, such as JOIN and RECOVER were removed. The
> DOS Shell was released separately as Microsoft felt that there were too
> many disks.
> 6.2 1993 Extra security was built into DoubleSpace following
> complaints of data loss. A new disk checker, SCANDISK, was also
> introduced, as well as improvements to DISKCOPY and SmartDrive.
> 6.21 1993 Following legal action by Stac Electronics,
> Microsoft
> released this version which had DoubleSpace removed. It came with a
> voucher for an alternative disk compression program.
> 6.22 1994 Microsoft licensed a disk-compression package
> called
> DoubleDisk from VertiSoft Systems and renamed it DriveSpace, which was
> included in this version.
> 7.0 1995 This version is part of the original version of
> Windows 95.
> It provides support for long filenames when Windows is running, but
> removes a large number of utilities, some of which are on the Windows 95
> CD in the \other\oldmsdos directory.
> 7.1 1997 This version is part of OEM Service Release 2 and
> later of
> Windows 95. The main change is support for FAT 32 hard disks, a more
> efficient and robust way of storing data on large drives.
> --------
>
> WarpDavey
> --
> Davey Brain
> All I really want is a president who is smarter than I am...
>
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
> atrocities." - Voltaire
>
> This OS/2 uptime is 0 d 13 h 30 m 33 seconds
>
>

Thanks for the information. It is appreciated.

TomLeeM / BigWarpGuy * * http://tomleem.homestead.com * *
* * Director of Communications - * - Linkmaster * * * * * * *
* * OS/2 Warp - eComStation Org * * OS/2 World * * * * * * *
* * http://www.os2ecs.org * * http://www.os2world.com * *
* * Supporting Past OS/2 Users and Future eCS Users * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Met my perfect match finally...

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:50 pm

#1331 Re: [osFree] Met my perfect match finally...
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
2006 Jan 20 3:53 PM
georgette-murdock687@... wrote:

> Damn, it has sure been a while... I just realized today that it's been
> 18 months since I went out with a special lady last,

Only a perfect match if they can code for the OSFree project. :-D


TomLeeM / BigWarpGuy * * http://tomleem.homestead.com * *
* * Director of Communications - * - Linkmaster * * * * * * *
* * OS/2 Warp - eComStation Org * * OS/2 World * * * * * * *
* * http://www.os2ecs.org * * http://www.os2world.com * *
* * Supporting Past OS/2 Users and Future eCS Users * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Ban the Spam? (was Re: Met this girl..)

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:51 pm

#1335 Ban the Spam? (was Re: Met this girl..)
Expand Messages

Tom Lee Mullins
2006 Jan 23 7:46 AM
--- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "georgette-murdock687@h..."
<georgette-murdock687@h...> wrote:

>
> Met my fiance here! hehe. Thought

Is there a way to ban the spam from this group?

TomLeeM

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:23 am
firstname: osFree
lastname: admin

Re: [osFree] Ban the Spam? (was Re: Met this girl..)

Post by admin » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:52 pm

#1336 Re: [osFree] Ban the Spam? (was Re: Met this girl..)
Expand Messages

adrian suri
2006 Jan 23 10:41 PM
Tom Lee Mullins wrote:

> --- In osFree@yahoogroups.com, "georgette-murdock687@h..."
> <georgette-murdock687@h...> wrote:
>
>> Met my fiance here! hehe. Thought
>
>
> Is there a way to ban the spam from this group?
>
> TomLeeM
>
> Yes, on yahoo groups by making sure all new members + member
> messages are moderated before being sent, you can then turn the
> moderation off after say the first or second valid message


adrian

Hide message history
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Post Reply