On Wed 02 Oct 2019 at 23:14:05 (+0200), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> > Suppose you read a message in the Web based archive and it is no
> > longer in your mailer. Either you weren't subscribed when the message
> > was sent or you were subscribed but have deleted the message.
Hi,
pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> Suppose you read a message in the Web based archive and it is no
> longer in your mailer. Either you weren't subscribed when the message
> was sent or you were subscribed but have deleted the message. Using
> tools available, in Debian or otherwise, can you reply wi
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 13:22:49 -0700
pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> Suppose you read a message in the Web based archive and it is no
> longer in your mailer. Either you weren't subscribed when the message
> was sent or you were subscribed but have deleted the message. Using
> tools available, in Deb
Suppose you read a message in the Web based archive and it is no
longer in your mailer. Either you weren't subscribed when the message
was sent or you were subscribed but have deleted the message. Using
tools available, in Debian or otherwise, can you reply with correct
threading? If so, plea
* From: lee
* Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:59:40 +0200
> [References] go back to beginnings of subthreads at
> least. > With only the In-Reply-To: header, threads would be broken ...
In http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists I've added a
section "Message Thr
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:15:57 -0800, peasthope wrote:
>> Would you please fix your mail client so you stop breaking the list
>> threading?
>
> Usually I manage to set In-reply-to to the Message-id of the message
> being replied to. In the Web archive, the Follow-Ups and References
> seem OK. Can
yed as the top of a new
>> thread.
>
> Yes, I intended to start a new thread on "message threading". Hence
> the subject "message threading; was Re (3): QCAD Pro in Squeeze".
That´s why I´m asking. I think it´s more common to use a new subject
when starting
new
> thread.
Yes, I intended to start a new thread on "message threading". Hence
the subject "message threading; was Re (3): QCAD Pro in Squeeze".
Thanks, ... Peter E.
--
Telephone 1 360 450 2132. bcc: peasthope at shaw.ca
Shop pages http://car
On 06/19/2011 06:15 PM, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
From a private message;
From: C P
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:30:55 -0400
Would you please fix your mail client so you stop breaking the list
threading?
Usually I manage to set In-reply-to to the Message-id of the message
being replied to. I
peasth...@shaw.ca writes:
>>From a private message;
> From: C P
> Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:30:55 -0400
>> Would you please fix your mail client so you stop breaking the list
>> threading?
>
> Usually I manage to set In-reply-to to the Message-id of the message
> being replied to. In the Web arc
>From a private message;
From: C P
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:30:55 -0400
> Would you please fix your mail client so you stop breaking the list
> threading?
Usually I manage to set In-reply-to to the Message-id of the message
being replied to. In the Web archive, the Follow-Ups and References
From: Bob Proulx
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:12:47 -0700
> I am suggesting that you have such a complicated routing setup that it
> is causing you difficulty and that you should simplify it by some
> method. You listed five (5!) route commands in your configuration.
Yes; addressing subnets rat
From: Bob Proulx
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:12:47 -0700
> And you have been having such trouble with your vpn(s). To me that is
> like a house of cards. A light breeze blows it over. In order to be
> more robust it needs to be simpler, less rigid, and more flexible.
Iprovements in progress.
On Wednesday 19 January 2011 04:12:47 Bob Proulx wrote:
> peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > You have a complicated setup!
> >
> > A complex setup. "complicated" is a verb. ... Sorry.
>
> Uhm... No. Complicated is an adjective.
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
>complicate
On Tue January 18 2011 20:12:47 Bob Proulx wrote:
> peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that all of dalton's 'net traffic
> > go through the tunnel and Joule? Are you suggesting
> > that all of joule's 'net traffic go through the tunnel
> > and dalton? Aren't both significantly disadv
peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > You have a complicated setup!
>
> A complex setup. "complicated" is a verb. ... Sorry.
Uhm... No. Complicated is an adjective.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
complicated
adj : difficult to analyze or understand; "a complicated problem"
From: Bob Proulx
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:59:42 -0700
> You have a complicated setup!
A complex setup. "complicated" is a verb. ... Sorry.
It's simplifying slowly and surely. One helpful detail is to
route to a LAN rather than to individual machines.
route 172.23.0.0 255.255.0.0
rather
peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
> A third case is when I am at work and the tunnel between dalton
You have a complicated setup!
> and joule is broken. Then POP3 can bring messages from the ISP
> through the public Internet to cantor; but the ISP will not accept
> a message from cantor via SMTP thro
Bob,
From: Bob Proulx
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:22:23 -0700
> Every reply of yours is starting a new thread. You can see this in
> the mailing list archives.
Apologies. I understand and certainly would prefer not do that.
> This is an aside but why is the subject being modified with a "
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:20:59PM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
> No, what I mean is that it's obviously *better* to use a MUA that supports
> threading,
Threading is good. I'd go nutty(no, wait, I did that years ago anyway)
trying to follow high-volume e-mail lists without it. Good thre
20 matches
Mail list logo
