Re: Sources.list Question
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, "Morel Bérenger"
<berenger.morel@neutralite.org> wrote:
> I guess he just have made a "reply" and then removed all message and
> title, and softwares which think IDs are relevant were fooled, unlike
> those which do not even try to know about flows or do that by subjects.
> And, honestly, I think the only way to know that something is related to
> another in ml's situation is by title, because a subject can fork, and
> will share the id (I even did not know that there were ids here, thanks
> for info).
>
> I think people on linux's mailing lists should know that automated things
> are never perfect, and must be taken carefully.
>
> But I do not think it have anything related to "Re: Sources.list Question".
Um, not to pour gasoline on a dying fire, but the OP was told it was
rude to hijack another thread. But the bulk of the posts in this
thread is about whether or not he *actually* hijacked it, why he might
have, and why gmail (and others) didn't pick up on it. Wouldn't this
be considered a hijack as well? Or is changing the focus of the thread
to discuss list etiquette ok? Or is hijacking a hijack not a hijack.
I'm just wondering...
--b
Reply to: