On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 08:12:06AM -0700, Doc Shipley wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 07:12, Victor Pelt wrote:
> > after having looked at a dozen different mailers, i havn't found one
> > which didn't have (at least) these features
>
> "mailx" doesn't have any buttons at all. :)
while you hav
I just went through some of the newer mailman features and found mime stripping
in the content filtering section. So, I enabled that.
As far as who Reply goes to, I remember CTLUG had a long somewhat fiery
discussion of the proper behavior. I am going to go through their archives and
see if the ar
Today at 2:36am, Omar El-Domeiri expounded:
++ Damn it why don't we still default to reply-to set to sender and
++ not the list!
I put this in .procmailrc . You might have to set the path to formail.
:0 fhw
* ^Reply-To: SIGLinux GNU/Linux Users Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| formail -I Reply-To:
-
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 07:12, Victor Pelt wrote:
> after having looked at a dozen different mailers, i havn't found one
> which didn't have (at least) these features
"mailx" doesn't have any buttons at all. :)
I do actually end up using mailx occasionally, and not by choice.
Even Pine is les
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 09:08 pm, Doc Shipley wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 00:54, Jason H. Smith wrote:
> > Anyway, everybody's mailer has two reply buttons: reply to sender,
> > and reply to list. (Actualy reply to sender is actually reply to
> > whoever-is-in-the-Reply-To:-header.) Why caus
after having looked at a dozen different mailers, i havn't found one
which didn't have (at least) these features
Quoting Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 00:54, Jason H. Smith wrote:
>
> > Anyway, everybody's mailer has two reply buttons: reply to sender, and
> > reply t
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 00:54, Jason H. Smith wrote:
> Anyway, everybody's mailer has two reply buttons: reply to sender, and
> reply to list. (Actualy reply to sender is actually reply to
> whoever-is-in-the-Reply-To:-header.) Why cause the pain and suffering?
Because making assumptions like
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 00:36, Omar El-Domeiri wrote:
> Damn it why don't we still default to reply-to set to sender and
> not the list!
>
> Look everyone I'm an asshole :)
Yebbut you're right. Two NICs is a very basic HOWTO question[0], and
the Outlook/AOLers on this list drive me nutz sometime
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 03:15 pm, Omar El-Domeiri wrote:
> Okay fine.. I've already shot myself in the foot.. acted ridiculous and
> abused the list worse than what I was complaining about.
Aww, come on, Dude. That's just the stress talking!
/Walter
--
GPG: 03EE 9EB8 E500 874A F509 7B95 9B9
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:41:05PM -0500, Austin R. Longino wrote:
> I was wondering how i could run 2 network cards in debian, i have 2 and wana connect
> to 2 different networks. How do i tell the services what network to run on and
> possibly run a couple on both. I ahve tried it before, but i
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 02:36 pm, Omar El-Domeiri wrote:
> Damn it why don't we still default to reply-to set to sender and
> not the list!
>
> Look everyone I'm an asshole :)
I wholeheartedly agree!
That is, I agree to the reply-to-list comment. Not the asshole comment.
...Necessarily :p
An
Damn it why don't we still default to reply-to set to sender and
not the list!
Look everyone I'm an asshole :)
-Omar
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:31:37AM -0500, Omar El-Domeiri wrote:
> I would answer this... but I have no time.. two tests tommarow..
> pulling all nighter.. and you keep posting f
I would answer this... but I have no time.. two tests tommarow..
pulling all nighter.. and you keep posting from outlook, and
with attached html versions... so you lose. someone will answer
you.. its easy.. try google.
-Omar
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:41:05PM -0500, Austin R. Longino wrote:
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
