On 2017-12-05 10:51, Georg Rudoy wrote:
> From and Reply-To are two separate fields.
Yes, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. I was giving an example
as to why the From field should be editable in an email client.
I’ll set the Reply-To for emails to be directed to the proper contact
point,
On 05.12.17 at 15:14 user Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
> replies in the first place.
>From and Reply-To are two separate fields.
But that, of course, depends on the way bans are implemented in the
maillist
On 2017-12-04 18:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> > Matt Turner wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> No one questions why I stepped down.
I have wondered what happened, but haven't felt able to investigate.
Please know that I wouldn't take sides without investigating, and I
think that an overwhelming majority is also like that. A problem is
that you'll only ever
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> > done: email spoofing,
>
> That was a complete
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
>
> Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> done: email spoofing,
That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had the
from field editable by default. It was NOT
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
>> Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
> Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>> wrote:
>> > That being said, that people find it
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:54:12 +
Peter Stuge wrote:
> I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.
Doesn't matter its ok because it was about me... I never did anything
of that nature or other stuff. Yet action was sought to be taken
against me years go and it
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's
> back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone
> would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show
I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.
I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project.
//Peter
It is interesting to see people discussing behavior on list while flat
out ignoring the following.
This person is NOT me! They showed in #gentoo-java the other day.
Prior to that I have never had any contact. They shared the below log
with me then. Which I found flattering and amusing. Haters
19:09 @floppym | wltjr really seems to make shit up when he
doen't know what he's talking about.
19:20@mgorny | lol
19:20@mgorny | we're talking about the real wltjr or the
r0b0t1 fake identity?
19:21 @floppym | mgorny: There's a fake?
19:22@mgorny | didn't you
14 matches
Mail list logo