On 2017-12-05 10:51, Georg Rudoy wrote:
> From and Reply-To are two separate fields.
Yes, but that wasn’t what was being discussed. I was giving an example
as to why the From field should be editable in an email client.
I’ll set the Reply-To for emails to be directed to the proper contact
point,
On 05.12.17 at 15:14 user Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> One reason is to send from a nonexistent account to avoid getting
> replies in the first place.
>From and Reply-To are two separate fields.
But that, of course, depends on the way bans are implemented in the
maillist management software.
--
On 2017-12-04 18:08, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> > Matt Turner wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> > > done: email spoofing,
>
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> No one questions why I stepped down.
I have wondered what happened, but haven't felt able to investigate.
Please know that I wouldn't take sides without investigating, and I
think that an overwhelming majority is also like that. A problem is
that you'll only ever h
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:01:39 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
> Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> > done: email spoofing,
>
> That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:43:15 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
>
> Sorry. I think I was confusing a number of irritating things you've
> done: email spoofing,
That was a complete accident due to a new version of Kmail that had the
from field editable by default. It was NOT intentional. Not the 1st
time. Th
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
>> Matt Turner wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>>> wrote:
>>> > That being said, that people find it ac
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:46 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
> Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>> wrote:
>> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
>> > another's back. Lobbing lots of i
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:26:26 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
> wrote:
> > That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind
> > another's back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to
> > assume someone would create a fake id
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:54:12 +
Peter Stuge wrote:
> I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.
Doesn't matter its ok because it was about me... I never did anything
of that nature or other stuff. Yet action was sought to be taken
against me years go and it propagates.
Mine
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:52 AM, William L. Thomson Jr.
wrote:
> That being said, that people find it acceptable to talk behind another's
> back. Lobbing lots of insults. Then having the ego to assume someone
> would create a fake identity. Any minimal research can show otherwise.
You did already
I'm quite unimpressed by how mgorny and jstein behave there.
I wouldn't accept that, were I leading the project.
//Peter
It is interesting to see people discussing behavior on list while flat
out ignoring the following.
This person is NOT me! They showed in #gentoo-java the other day.
Prior to that I have never had any contact. They shared the below log
with me then. Which I found flattering and amusing. Haters will
19:09 @floppym | wltjr really seems to make shit up when he
doen't know what he's talking about.
19:20@mgorny | lol
19:20@mgorny | we're talking about the real wltjr or the
r0b0t1 fake identity?
19:21 @floppym | mgorny: There's a fake?
19:22@mgorny | didn't you n
14 matches
Mail list logo
