[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bugs + rant + constructive criticism (long)

On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:56:38PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> FYI 28 (aka RFC 1855) is the standard.
> There is nothing about honoring X headers at all.

I didn't say there was.  Does "Mail-Copies-To:" begin with an X?

> In fact, the only thing the RFC says to do is to honor Reply-To: headers,
> which I might note you didn't include in your message.

Why should I, when it would be no different from my From: header?

> Basically, you're on the wrong side of RFC 1855 on this issue and all the
> bitching in the world isn't going to change it.  If I'm wrong, prove it:
> I've provided my proof in the form of RFC 1855.  

Yes, you obviously attached quite a bit of RFC reading material to your

Now, let's examine the headers of YOUR message...

From: John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Well, that's clever.  Are you messages so important that you (or your MUA)
feels they should be read twice?  (Fortunately, I think either an RFC or
the mailing list software squelches the duplicate.)

Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.21.0101031636290.13310-100000@inconnu.isu.edu>

Oh well, at least the clue ratio of your MUA is homologous to your own,
thus preserving notions of symmetry in the universe.

G. Branden Robinson             |    The only way to get rid of a temptation
Debian GNU/Linux                |    is to yield to it.
branden@debian.org              |    -- Oscar Wilde
http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpQCBoQ5qKnT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: