* Chris Halls <chris.halls@gmx.de> [2002-05-13 16:14]: > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:13:30PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> Thanks for the Cc, don't forget it next time, too :) > > :) Have you heard of the Reply-To: header? That does just what you want. Yes, but the Reply-To: Header is for something different. It's for if you want to reply to me personally and I want the answers at another address than I'm writing from. If I set it to my address and to the list you can't reply to me personally (at least not without work beside not forgetting to delete the list out). Reply-To is not the place I want to play with. At least for mutt users I did set the Mail-Followup-To: Header. >> * Chris Halls <chris.halls@gmx.de> [2002-05-13 14:47]: >> Am not sure, didn't check the source about it - just noticed it :) But >> I guess it's upstream if you don't know about it *smirks* > > Yep, I just checked again and I can't control that :( Maybe we can do a > dirty hack by making ~/.mailcap read-only or something similar while setup > is run. Uhm, don't think that that would be a good idea. Could lead to security problems or such. Moving it away could be an option, using mktemp. >> I am not that good in posix scripting, maybe I can find a dirty hack >> for that openoffice script to check that... I think we have to at least >> have the version "OpenOffice.org 1.0" hardcoded in the script for the >> check within the .sversionrc file, or is there a way to get that version >> string from somewhere? > > Umm, what I meant was that I'm not convinced we should be doing this at all > - the existence of an OpenOffice.org 1.0 directory implies the user ran > setup manually, It doesn't. An admin could change /etc/openoffice/autoresponse.conf -- after all it's a configuration file that admins are *allowed* to change. We shouldn't work against that. And "OpenOffice.org 1.0" in the .sversion i not the directory name, it's the OO.o version string: alfie@nox:~$ cat .sversionrc [Versions] OpenOffice.org 1.0=file:///home/alfie/etc/OO.o-1.0 > and I'd rather we don't even support running setup manually, since it > introduces new unwanted problems. But we should support changing configuration files, shouldn't we? :) > The only reason for running manually at the moment, is so that the > Java home can be specified instead of being none, and I'd rather we > solve that automatically, too. That can be done by changing the configuration file, too. [proxy with auth] > Hehe - absolutely. I'll leave it to you to take it upstream :) Oh, thought you mentioned something you filed upstream... Must have been something else, thanks for the hint and the reminder. Have fun, Alfie [thinking of subscribing ;] -- "at the end of a war the survivors are none b'cos a war is a loss a war can't be won" -- Clawfinger
Attachment:
pgpd5e1EiPlAl.pgp
Description: PGP signature