Hello Peter Hampf everyone else,
on 21-Mai-2005 at 23:15 you (Peter Hampf) wrote:
well, so far and from the programmers point of view absolutely correct.
Without having the corresponding RFC at my fingertips, do you know whether
it's
defined that a mid has to be enclosed in brackets?
RFC
Hello Peter,
On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:40:17 +0200 GMT (22/05/2005, 03:40 +0700 GMT),
Peter Hampf wrote:
PH I just found a message in TBUDL which is wrongly placed inside a thread.
Confirmed.
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Don't forget your wife's name . . . that will mess up the love.
(Roger, 8)
Hello Peter,
On Sun, 22 May 2005 07:42:02 +0200 GMT (22/05/2005, 12:42 +0700 GMT),
Peter Hampf wrote:
PH I guess there are more persons here reading tbudl as well. Can you - the
others
PH - please verify how TB behaves on your system?
Behaves here like on your system.
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
On 5/21/2005 04:30 PM, Ian A. White wrote:
Peter,
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 6:40:17 AM, you (Peter Hampf) wrote:
PH Good evening tbbeta,
PH I just found a message in TBUDL which is wrongly placed inside a thread.
PH See attached file, please.
This is strange. I have gone through the only
On 5/21/2005 04:30 PM, Ian A. White wrote:
Peter,
On Sunday, May 22, 2005, 6:40:17 AM, you (Peter Hampf) wrote:
PH Good evening tbbeta,
PH I just found a message in TBUDL which is wrongly placed inside a thread.
PH See attached file, please.
This is strange. I have gone through the
Hello Peter Hampf everyone else,
on 21-Mai-2005 at 22:40 you (Peter Hampf) wrote:
Why does TB handle this message as if it were a reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Thats the nearest correct reference MID I'd say, so TB picks it and shows
the new message beneath this reference. I thinks that the
6 matches
Mail list logo
