So weird! I sent the same message twice, and only when I changed the
url did it go through... perhaps coincidence. Let's see if this reply
makes it through.
On 01/09/18 15:20, Maynard, Chris wrote:
I'm not aware of any constraints with respect to URL's.
Here's a test of your message with the original URL you intended to write; let's see if this goes through ...
Is there anyone who knows of an updated sharktooks that works with the latest wireshark (2.2+) ?
I've contacted the author and haven't heard anything back yet. Is there someone who may be willing to help update sharktools to work with modern wireshark?
I've done a tiny little bit of porting work so far on it, but I still have a ways to go and I'm not familiar with the history/refactors that wireshark has gone through to really do a proper port. I'm getting a bit lost in the details.
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mark Murawski
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Test
What are the constraints for posting on this list? It does look like url links
contained in a post body will cause the post to be completely blocked with no
On 1/9/18 3:10 PM, Mark Murawski wrote:
I tried replying to this message with my other (real) message and it's
not going through. It must be tripping some anti-spam filters or
something like that.
On 1/8/18 5:39 PM, Kennedy, Smith (Wireless & Standards Architec) wrote:
On Jan 8, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Mark Murawski
<[email protected]> wrote:
I don't believe my last message went through.