On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, at 11:57am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There are insurmountable technical reasons (as far as I'm concerned) for
> keeping [email protected], so if anything, we should remove
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Reluctantly agreed.  Many moons ago, when <[email protected]> was being
phased out, we ("we" being those of us around a table at Martha's drinking
beer) had these grand plans of creating a mecca of online GNHLUG resources
on some hypothetical dedicated server.  There was talk of <mail.gnhlug.org>
being a temporary thing, and that <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would be where we
eventually got to.  I think that was where the alias came from.  Obviously,
the rest never happened...  :-(

> I suspect the reason [EMAIL PROTECTED] is appearing in mail messages, is
> because someone's MUA is placing it on the address line; I don't believe
> its in any mailman definitions anywhere.

  I had "gnhlug" aliased to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in my address book, so at
least one of the guilty parties was me.  I probably typed that in about the
same time <zk3.dec.com> died.  /me bows head in remembrance.  I've updated
my address book to point to the longer form.

  FWIW, I've got an elaborate set of procmail recipes, Pine rules, scripts,
and other kludgery that makes sure that when I post to GNHLUG, all my
headers are set properly (for a specific definition of "properly").  So the
*duplicate* headers weren't coming from me.

-- 
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |


_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss

Reply via email to