On Saturday 15 November 2008, "Patrick Wiseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about 'Re: Q: List Policy': >On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. < >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html<http://wooz >>le.org/%7Eneale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html>-- the body of which >> should actually be read after reading the first two references. > >Oh, please. What the heck do you know about the forums I manage? I > wasn't suggesting that Debian forums should set reply-to that way.
Sorry, that how I interpreted you post. I may have come off a little short, but my intention was to have as little debate as possible and have said debate be well-informed. I meant no offense. >Oh, and you might want to check out >http://www.mindspring.com/~pwiseman/reply-to.html - there's more than one >viewpoint. That page echos my feelings prior to the clarification in newer RFCs. And, for mailing lists for less technically inclined users (such as those where are subscriptions and unsubscriptions are handled by emailing a human administrator) it's still a policy I can get behind. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
