On Wednesday 23 February 2005 01:25 pm, Dave Nebinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea, I'm sorry if you felt flogged by folks wanting the old modus
operandi in place; you were right in the first place to have fixed the
'reply to'.
Although I've just sent a similar email, I want to jump in
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:58:07 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Although I've just sent a similar email, I want to jump in here with a
me too. Andrea, there are some users out here that realise you were
doing the right thing and we applaud you for it. It's unfortunate that
this
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:28:45 +, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:58:07 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Although I've just sent a similar email, I want to jump in here with a
me too. Andrea, there are some users out here that realise you were
doing
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 01:25 pm, Dave Nebinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrea, I'm sorry if you felt flogged by folks wanting the old modus
operandi in place; you were right in the first place to have fixed the
'reply to'.
Although I've just sent a similar
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:37:53 +0100, Holly Bostick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accept that header-munging is incorrect behaviour, however it solves
some real usage issues, albeit in an imperfect fashion.
Maybe instead of arguing about to mung or not to mung, we should be
trying to find or
Collins Richey wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:37:53 +0100, Holly Bostick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I accept that header-munging is incorrect behaviour, however it solves
some real usage issues, albeit in an imperfect fashion.
Maybe instead of arguing about to mung or not to mung, we should be
