com</a> earlier today.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't get any=
today but I did on the 1st and 2nd September. I assume the reason is the s=
ame.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Mike=A0</div></div>
--20cf307ca01c9185bb04c90a23d2--
From murray.crane@??? Tue Sep 25 13:48:42 2012
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <murray.crane@???>)
id 1TGVVC-0002Me-HG
for users@???; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:48:42 +0000
Received: by obhx4 with SMTP id x4so236453obh.21
for <users@???>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=P4DDMuWcWeyS2A+oaSX17pGzlfiXFd6ff2p8OTEKbFE=;
b=0Qb8XrHWEWFjpid+2vjho65/bPOcxmOlccFNa2ocvOMtYIFhC1XT2Ew7iU6sXDBvtZ
FJYqBRDU6Tp/wOo3EWGx+PCgt/VMs1wsoWpY9KqvKRVF42jVP5EjSkVfsXmSkbNf3Abr
PvfRHKypkAH935AV2uGyUYMZjFNiEPvdGRcco2fyi2IBRiYeGTJpLS16kASn2QGABckg
z67lRXk2NANKJPsDrbSIYKwW5Csj7GRmov08fp5Jo5IYjoVSSuTLKZgFjvVsNuwNcq8I
tRfymPqH1cJhZCp8P2wBgI2Az/1T0PxIPUhEUUs65q3jCytSOiZ7V/i4v5AVuSTmC4It
mVVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.10.134 with SMTP id i6mr12250394oeb.137.1348580914890; Tue,
25 Sep 2012 06:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.121.71 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:48:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAiW_Gmu-_GgY2Q3aP1NW=ozycqVoSGptTqjn2qShwBZAn=HFw@???>
From: Murray Crane <murray.crane@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1eafc6206da04ca86f601
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Tue,
25 Sep 2012 13:48:42 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: murray.crane@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd0.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
low * trust
* [209.85.214.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: [bitfolk] Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server Upgrade
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:48:43 -0000
--e89a8fb1eafc6206da04ca86f601
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
*TL;DR*: YMMV, but upgrading worked/is working great for me
I suspect like many Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server admins out there, I've avoided
upgrading any 10.04 servers I look after to 12.04 because it's always good
to giv
