On 9/10/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 08:18:01AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > On 9/9/05, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please use a non-broken mail program. > > Anyways, please say what you mean in a fashion that carries > > useful information. > > Thank you Mr. Pedant. If you'll examine the grandparent mail to mine, > you'll find your answer. Good luck figuring out which that is, with all the > thread breaks.
It looks to me like the grandparent to yours was also yours: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00151.html And I'll guess that your problem is that Humberto's response doesn't show up as one of the followups from that message. Or, alternatively, that your message isn't one of the references from Humberto's message. However, given that mailx behaves this way, that the priority of the mailx package is "important", and given that there's not even a wishlist bug filed against the mailx package on this issue, I think it's a bit much to be calling this behavior "broken" here. As for my pedantry... there really isn't any other good way to deal with software problems. At best, you can dump the pedantry on someone else. (Unless you were trying to imply that this issue is trivial? If the whole thing is trivial, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. If it's worth dealing with, it's worth dealing with right, and isolating the relevant details is the only way to do that.) -- Raul