On Wednesday 21 November 2012 14:01:53 Brad Alexander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, "Morel Bérenger" > > <berenger.mo...@neutralite.org> wrote: > > I guess he just have made a "reply" and then removed all message and > > title, and softwares which think IDs are relevant were fooled, unlike > > those which do not even try to know about flows or do that by subjects. > > And, honestly, I think the only way to know that something is related to > > another in ml's situation is by title, because a subject can fork, and > > will share the id (I even did not know that there were ids here, thanks > > for info). > > > > I think people on linux's mailing lists should know that automated things > > are never perfect, and must be taken carefully. > > > > But I do not think it have anything related to "Re: Sources.list > > Question". > > Um, not to pour gasoline on a dying fire, but the OP was told it was > rude to hijack another thread. But the bulk of the posts in this > thread is about whether or not he *actually* hijacked it, why he might > have, and why gmail (and others) didn't pick up on it. Wouldn't this > be considered a hijack as well? Or is changing the focus of the thread > to discuss list etiquette ok? Or is hijacking a hijack not a hijack. > I'm just wondering...
:-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201211211417.56446.lisi.re...@gmail.com
