Ed Lazor wrote:
Aren't these headers part of the "proposed" RFC? If so, you can't call the
MUA non-RFC compliant, since the proposal hasn't been finalized and approved.
Can anyone tell me what the RFC is that mentioned the headers. I am
getting hasseled by some users and if I can point them
John Vorstermans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed Lazor wrote:
Aren't these headers part of the "proposed" RFC? If so, you can't call the
MUA non-RFC compliant, since the proposal hasn't been finalized and approved.
Can anyone tell me what the RFC is that mentioned the headers. I am
getting
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, John Vorstermans wrote:
Ed Lazor wrote:
Aren't these headers part of the "proposed" RFC? If so, you can't call the
MUA non-RFC compliant, since the proposal hasn't been finalized and approved.
Can anyone tell me what the RFC is that mentioned the headers. I am
Hi,
The Mailman headers are very verbose, is there a way to set the config so it
is less obnoxious for the users? I am not using sendmail for anything else
on this machine. We are using Mailman 2.0.1 on RedHat 7.1.
-elly
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The Mailman headers are very verbose, is there a way to set the config
so it is less obnoxious for the users? I am not using sendmail for
anything else on this machine. We are using Mailman 2.0.1 on RedHat
7.1.
The users should not be shown these headers by a sane
The users should not be shown these headers by a sane MUA. If your MUA
is forcing these headers on users then it is non-RFC compliant and
should be taken out and shot.
Aren't these headers part of the "proposed" RFC? If so, you can't call the
MUA non-RFC compliant, since the proposal hasn't
One question that has been asked repeatedly of the people on your side if
this question and never answered: what MUAs show these headers by default?
From feedback I've received, it appears Eudora is the most widely used MUA
showing these headers. I think a few people were using old versions
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote:
From feedback I've received, it appears Eudora is the most widely used MUA
showing these headers. I think a few people were using old versions of
pine, dtmail, and Netscape Navigator. I'd have to double check to verify
this, but I hope that helps.
I use Eudora at home all the time, though, and it DOESN'T show these
headers by default...
This is because you've upgraded Eudora to the most recent version and / or
made changes to the TabooHeaders parameter in the eudora.ini
file. Right? And if that's the case, are you suggesting people
At 01:09 PM 2/15/2001 -0800, Ed Lazor wrote:
I use Eudora at home all the time, though, and it DOESN'T show these
headers by default...
This is because you've upgraded Eudora to the most recent version and / or
made changes to the TabooHeaders parameter in the eudora.ini
file. Right? And if
HOWEVER, since the source code is freely available, you have it within
your power to modify it and remove the offending lines of code that
generate the "extra" headers.
Do we *really* have to go through this again and again?
How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote:
How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make?
Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it
will slow adoption of the RFC.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE [EMAIL
How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make?
Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it
will slow adoption of the RFC.
And because it's the wrong thing to do, and I don't want to see it
encouraged or supported, even implicitly.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote:
How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes to make?
Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it
will slow adoption of the RFC.
The question that drove the FAQ request above was:
HOWEVER, since the source
Well, (a) it's a rarely-asked, not frequently-asked, question, and (b) it
will slow adoption of the RFC.
If it's a rarely-asked question, then posting something for those who do
ask should be seen as a step towards customer service and present no threat
to adoption of the RFC.
I originally
"again and again" sounds like a FAQ to me.
Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ:
Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail?
A: You don't.
--
Mailman-Users maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ:
Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail?
A: You don't.
It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes
greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:17:35 -0800
Ed Lazor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I mentioned last week, forcing mailing list admins to make
their subscribers switch email clients or make modifications to
their current email clients is unreasonable.
We have different definitions of "unreasonable". I
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Ed Lazor wrote:
It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes
greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support.
It's a sad state of affairs when you can't tell the difference between
addressing people's concerns and following their
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:49 -0800
Ed Lazor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about adding something to the FAQ that describes what changes
to make?
When can we expect your patch for the FAQ?
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-(*)
Right. So let's add an entry to the FAQ:
Q: How do I remove the List-* headers from Mailman's mail?
A: You don't.
It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes
greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support.
Ed, you are free to modify Open
On 2/15/01 4:28 PM, "Dan Mick" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a sad state of affairs when the value of a law or standard becomes
greater than the concerns of the people it's supposed to support.
Ed, you are free to modify Open Source software.
Heck, I'll go further. It's a sad state of
When can we expect your patch for the FAQ?
I sent out a full listing of the changes I made to remove the headers last
week. If someone else would like to create a patch, that would be great,
because I don't know how to. This is one of the reasons why I was hoping
to appeal to people on the
23 matches
Mail list logo
