* 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