| Perhaps you are making a point about the way nmh generates message-ids?
| Should the algorithm be smarter than it is for us to change the
| default with a clear conscience?
No, that's not it, the algorithm is fine (look at my message-id header,
you'll see nothing there different
Date:Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:04:11 +1000
From:Joel Reicher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Nevertheless, I don't agree that the nmh algorithm is fine. On the
| contrary, I think most of what you've said constitutes an argument in
| favour of
Date:Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:38:15 +1000
From:Joel Reicher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I was going to put it in the ChangeLog and give it a somewhat
| prominent place in the 1.3 release announcement.
I'm not sure I can convince myself that most
Date:Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:02:55 +1000
From:Joel Reicher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
| would be to put -msgid in the defaults for send.
I might too (see below for possibly
I see a
message-id header. The message-id header results from send: -msgid
in my profile.
I get the feeling this might be catching many people, and my preference
would be to put -msgid in the defaults for send. I think it makes
more sense for the software constructing the message to construct
Hi Neil,
Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local
user names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming
`to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is
vital for referring someone back to an earlier email. I dcc myself
and file that
Hi all,
Two things:
1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc and
Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so that the
Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
Fcc: +outbox
in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disagree?
Hi Paul,
joel wrote:
1) Some people have commented on the comp.mail.mh newsgroup that Bcc
and Dcc headers should not be removed before Fcc is processed, so
that the Fcc copy contains them. Since the default components has
Fcc: +outbox in it I'm inclined to agree. Does anyone disagree?
Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filing a
local copy, it expects a
Hi Jerrad,
Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local
user names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming
`to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is
vital for
Erm, it's not at all useless, you're misusing it. Fcc is for filing a
Hi Jerrad,
Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I have
Indeed.
Actually, I was just being polite. My second message merely repeated
the information that was in the first.
The former isn't very helpful if I ever wish to dist or forw the
email on. No message-id is a killer.
Meh, it saves a
Ralph Corderoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mar 30, 2007:
Agreed.
Besides, I've always found fcc useless. It doesn't expand local user
names, e.g. `to: ralph' stays like that instead of becoming `to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]', and there's no message-id which is vital for
referring someone back to an
I didn't read the comp.mail.mh article, so maybe I'm repeating what was
said there. But whenever I use dcc:, I always end up saving those lines
to a temporary file (or copying them with my mouse), then editing my
copy to add that field to it -- so I can find out, later, who I sent the
message
13 matches
Mail list logo
