Re: Sources.list Question
On Wednesday 21 November 2012 14:01:53 Brad Alexander wrote:
> 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...
:-)
Lisi
Reply to: