On Monday 02 February 2009 15:13:02 Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/02/02 14:43 (GMT+0100) Henne Vogelsang composed:
we keep discussing this over and over again with the same arguments. Nothing has changed. We decided and thats how it is.
Please make this the end of this thread. Thanks.
This one will inevitably end, but others will inevitably start. It will remain inevitable as long as the general minority status quo is retained.
Both ways have their good and their bad. Why not create an individual setup option that segregates listserver outgoing according to preference, allowing both camps to get what they want?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html -- "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up." Ephesians 4:29 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
I have a very simple and extremely strong reason to consider the presence of the in-treply-to header a necessity: this is a maling list, thus all replies to messages originating from it are supposed to belong to the list, at least by default. The other behaviour is surely a possibility, but without any doubt it should be considered the exception and not the norm. So, since all traffic is supposed to converge to the list (by default) all clients should be put in the position to behave accordingly (following the protocol). In my humble opinion the http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html "document" is 200% bullshit -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org