Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ignoring the CoC in regards to cc:s (Re: Can we ship sources of a PDF file in the Debian diff?
- From: Darren Salt <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:35:57 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 5058968F04firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <20090427174908.GB12355@tumbolia.org>
- References: <E1Lxi8q-0006qZfirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20090427123915.GD2275@tumbolia.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090427130600.GG1760@sirena.org.uk> <20090427132214.GG2275@tumbolia.org> <49F5BEDC.email@example.com> <20090427144130.GI2275@tumbolia.org> <20090427150919.GS22020@miranda> <20090427174908.GB12355@tumbolia.org>
I demand that Noah Slater may or may not have written...
[snip; in reply to Brett Parker]
> Considering that we're discussing on a mailing list, it's reasonable to
> assume that the common case is replying to the list. Why optimise for, what
> is surely by definition, the uncommon case?
Why *break* the uncommon case by adding/replacing (abusing) Reply-To?
Anyway, reply-to-list is a followup function (or, at least, it is such in all
news/mail software which I've used with mailing lists).
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF MESSAGE TRANSMISSION
"He taught us drawing, stretching, and fainting in coils."