* Mail Header without the Reply-To line
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 Mo DeJong
2000-07-23 22:21 ` Mo DeJong
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Mo DeJong @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
This request was sent to the sourcenav mailing list.
The user points out that it would be easier to
reply to the correct address if we had a reply to
field.
Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
I think it is a good idea. There is no reason
to get two emails everytime someone responds to
a message you posted.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:57:11 -0400
From: Gilles J. Seguin <segg@infonet.ca>
To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
Subject: Re: Where is the CVS repository?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mo
Reply-To: S-N <sourcenav@sources.redhat.com>
To: Ben
Mo DeJong wrote:
>
(...)
We do not have the Reply-To line like in the example above, it has
been added manually.
I think the feature can save unwanted mail or redirection where
we want it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 Mail Header without the Reply-To line Mo DeJong
@ 2000-07-23 22:21 ` Mo DeJong
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Mo DeJong @ 2000-07-23 22:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
This request was sent to the sourcenav mailing list.
The user points out that it would be easier to
reply to the correct address if we had a reply to
field.
Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
I think it is a good idea. There is no reason
to get two emails everytime someone responds to
a message you posted.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:57:11 -0400
From: Gilles J. Seguin <segg@infonet.ca>
To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
Subject: Re: Where is the CVS repository?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mo
Reply-To: S-N <sourcenav@sources.redhat.com>
To: Ben
Mo DeJong wrote:
>
(...)
We do not have the Reply-To line like in the example above, it has
been added manually.
I think the feature can save unwanted mail or redirection where
we want it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 Mail Header without the Reply-To line Mo DeJong
2000-07-23 22:21 ` Mo DeJong
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-07-23 22:24 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mdejong; +Cc: overseers
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mo DeJong <mdejong@cygnus.com>
This request was sent to the sourcenav mailing list.
The user points out that it would be easier to
reply to the correct address if we had a reply to
field.
Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
I think it is a good idea. There is no reason
to get two emails everytime someone responds to
a message you posted.
Please see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2000-07-23 22:24 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2000-07-23 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mdejong; +Cc: overseers
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mo DeJong <mdejong@cygnus.com>
This request was sent to the sourcenav mailing list.
The user points out that it would be easier to
reply to the correct address if we had a reply to
field.
Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
I think it is a good idea. There is no reason
to get two emails everytime someone responds to
a message you posted.
Please see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-07-23 22:24 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
2000-07-24 8:00 ` Chris Faylor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chris Faylor @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers, mdejong
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:24:10PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>The user points out that it would be easier to reply to the correct
>address if we had a reply to field.
>
>Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
>
>I think it is a good idea. There is no reason to get two emails
>everytime someone responds to a message you posted.
>
>Please see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
Oops. I was looking forward to rereading this but the above URL
doesn't work. I don't see an obvious typo there so I wonder if
this page has vanished.
cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
@ 2000-07-24 8:00 ` Chris Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chris Faylor @ 2000-07-24 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers, mdejong
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:24:10PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>The user points out that it would be easier to reply to the correct
>address if we had a reply to field.
>
>Reply-To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com
>
>I think it is a good idea. There is no reason to get two emails
>everytime someone responds to a message you posted.
>
>Please see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
Oops. I was looking forward to rereading this but the above URL
doesn't work. I don't see an obvious typo there so I wonder if
this page has vanished.
cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
2000-07-24 9:19 ` Phil Edwards
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
> Duh. I forgot to drop the last period.
>
> How embarrassing.
"Boy, is my face red!" :-)
This is why I like the <URL:http://....> syntax. Clear delimiters that
can't be used inside the URL itself.
phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
@ 2000-07-24 9:19 ` Phil Edwards
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2000-07-24 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
> Duh. I forgot to drop the last period.
>
> How embarrassing.
"Boy, is my face red!" :-)
This is why I like the <URL:http://....> syntax. Clear delimiters that
can't be used inside the URL itself.
phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
2000-07-24 9:19 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
2000-07-24 9:21 ` Chris Faylor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chris Faylor @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil Edwards; +Cc: overseers
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:21:01PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
>>Duh. I forgot to drop the last period.
>>
>>How embarrassing.
>
>"Boy, is my face red!" :-)
>
>This is why I like the <URL:http://....> syntax. Clear delimiters that
>can't be used inside the URL itself.
Except that when I double click on that I still have to edit out the URL:
naughty bit.
cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
@ 2000-07-24 9:21 ` Chris Faylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Chris Faylor @ 2000-07-24 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil Edwards; +Cc: overseers
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:21:01PM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
>>Duh. I forgot to drop the last period.
>>
>>How embarrassing.
>
>"Boy, is my face red!" :-)
>
>This is why I like the <URL:http://....> syntax. Clear delimiters that
>can't be used inside the URL itself.
Except that when I double click on that I still have to edit out the URL:
naughty bit.
cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: Mail Header without the Reply-To line
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
2000-07-24 8:33 ` Phil Edwards
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers; +Cc: cgf
> >Please see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
>
> Oops. I was looking forward to rereading this but the above URL
> doesn't work. I don't see an obvious typo there so I wonder if
> this page has vanished.
Works for me as of 11:30 EST. Check your typing?
Phil
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-12-30 6:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-12-30 6:08 Mail Header without the Reply-To line Mo DeJong
2000-07-23 22:21 ` Mo DeJong
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-07-23 22:24 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
2000-07-24 8:00 ` Chris Faylor
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
2000-07-24 9:19 ` Phil Edwards
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
2000-07-24 9:21 ` Chris Faylor
2000-12-30 6:08 Phil Edwards
2000-07-24 8:33 ` Phil Edwards
2000-12-30 6:08 ` Chris Faylor
2000-07-24 8:48 ` Chris Faylor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).