Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still*
got an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard
is to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where
The Wanderer wrote:
>>> I would be interested to find out, if someone is present who does
>>> know. I would also be interested to know the rationale behind the
>>> behaviour, given that the only potentially real-world scenario I
>>> can think of where this behaviour seems as if it would be useful
Bob Proulx wrote:
> I saw that you had set Reply-To: back to the mailing list and I do not
> know why that reply message did not respect your reply-to header.
> For what it is worth I think it should have done so.
I changed it. I've been burned in the past (or at least received
complaints) when
The Wanderer wrote:
> (And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
> an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one.
Even though it is not an official standard the best ad-hoc standard is
to set "Mail-Followup-To: " to instruct mailers where to send followup
me
(And yet again. Not that it did a lot of good last time; I *still* got
an incorrect private reply, in addition to the public one. Is there any
particular reason why you ignored my explicit request to not get both
responses?)
Chet Ramey wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
(And again.)
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
> (And again.)
>
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> Quite some time and several varyingly-significant updates of bash
>>> ago, I was able to perform history expansion on multi-word
>>> commands.
>>>
>>> At present and for some while now, [!ls /h] instead expan
(And again.)
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
Quite some time and several varyingly-significant updates of bash
ago, I was able to perform history expansion on multi-word
commands.
At present and for some while now, [!ls /h] instead expands to
ls /tmp/ /h
This is also what csh does i
Reply addresses set by hand to work around broken defaults. (Again.)
Paul Jarc wrote:
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
!ls /h
How about: ls /h
That works, and explains what exactly that function is supposed to do (I
have inadvertently gotten into that mode at various points in the
The Wanderer wrote:
> Quite some time and several varyingly-significant updates of bash
> ago, I was able to perform history expansion on multi-word commands.
>
> At present and for some while now, it instead expands to
>
> ls /tmp/ /h
This is also what csh does in this situation too. This type
The Wanderer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> !ls /h
How about: ls /h
paul
10 matches
Mail list logo
