Thus said Grant Robinson on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:24:48 MDT: > If anyone was going to reply saying "get rid of the reply-to for > good", it would be Andy. :)
You mentioned it publically, I wasn't going to say anything about it (and believe me I did notice), but I couldn't resist once you started... > That is why we still have it, because a few people with an axe to > grind want to remove the reply-to, and everyone else wants it to stay. I think ``everyone else'' is a broad statement. Clearly this thread shows that reply-to isn't necessary to keep a thread moving on the list. > Plus, Hans removed it to attempt to stop the flame war. I was pointing > out it didn't stop it, so put it back the way it was. So, let's not > start another flame war centered around the reply-to header. Ahh, but there's a lesson to learn here, now that the cat is out of the bag... We can see the the users of this list are smarter than the reply-to. :-) Andy -- GnuPG ID 0xA63888C9 (D2DA 68C9 BB2B 26B4 8204 2219 A43E F450 A638 88C9) [-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------] 9:40pm up 72 days, 6:18, 2 users, load average: 1.01, 1.34, 1.42 .-----------------------------------. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `-----------------------------------'
