Daniel Stenberg writes:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>>> * I changed Reply-To: to point back to this list
>>
>> Not as cool.
>> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>
> Yeah, I know this is religous and for each of the points in that document
> there are reb
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>
> Yeah, I know this is religous and for each of the points in that
> document there are rebuttals in other documents you can also easily
> find with google.
>
> There's simply no "objective" best approach for
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Peter Stuge wrote:
>> * I changed Reply-To: to point back to this list
>
> Not as cool.
> http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
Yeah, I know this is religous and for each of the points in that document
there are rebuttals in other documents you can also
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> * It now completely discards posts from non-subscribers.
Cool!
> * I cut off the [libssh2] prefix from the subjects.
Also cool!
> * I changed Reply-To: to point back to this list
Not as cool.
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
> since I g
