At 08:20 AM 5/11/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>But e-mail interacts with other email systems all over the internet. When
>you hose a mailman system, it affects the mail systems of all of the
>subscribers, which potentially hoses them AND the admins of THEIR mail
>servers.
But, with the exclu
At 07:43 AM 5/11/01 -0700, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
>How far does that go? Should you be allowed to turn off the "To:" header
>if you want? "Subject:"? "Date:"?
Oh, please. Lets not get snide about this. We are talking about a very
specific set of headers and you know it.
We are talking a
At 05:32 PM 5/10/01 -0700, Dan Mick wrote:
>So you have no problem. So why are you complaining about them?
>You can't have it both ways.
No. I said that adoption was underway. I didn't say it was
complete. Besides, there are other reasons to make the 2369 headers
optional in addition to t
At 03:13 PM 5/9/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>On 5/9/01 1:33 PM, "Bill Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OTOH, a strident "hack it or take a hike" anti-configuration stance (some
> > of the messages in the archive are downright hostile) act
At 01:29 PM 5/9/01 -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>On the larger question of the List-* headers, there's no doubt that
>the situation will not change for the 2.0.x maintenance branch. If
>you want to get rid of the headers, hack the source.
Fair enough.
>But, Mailman could do a better job of con
At 12:15 AM 5/9/01 -0700, J C Lawrence wrote:
>There is a critical difference. X does allow you and even makes it
>very easy to do damned near anything you want, encluding being
>incredibly stupid and making bad decisions. In a general light,
>this is not a Bad Thing. One critical aspect howeve
At 11:32 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>I disagree. Policy decisions should be made by people who can make them in
>an informed way, not out of ignorance. X windows lets its users do REALLY
>STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE things, simply because they want to. "because they
>want to" isn't a good
So, I lied about my previous post being my last, but on reflection perhaps
some final comments are in order, or perhaps I just can't help myself...
At 04:54 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>This issue comes up again and again, and I apologize in advance if I sound
>(or sounded) grumpy a
At 01:33 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote:
>Someone posted a hack to remove the headers a while ago. Search the list
>if you're interested.
OK, I found a reference to this in the archive, and located the spot to
hack the code. On my first look I didn't grep deep enough into the
distribution.
At 12:47 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>You should have made those comments to the standards committee. The RFC is
>the RFC.
What RFC? If you have a cite for an RFC which says that Mailman must add
10 lines worth of headers to every message it sends I'd be delighted to
read it.
>(h
At 12:42 PM 5/8/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote:
>ref. Eudora .ini Settings TabooHeaders
Hello Mike,
Yes, I know about the TabooHeaders settings for Eudora, but most of my list
readers don't, and they are probably using some M$ junk to read mail
anyway, and they don't care about things like TabooHe
At 12:01 PM 5/8/01 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > How should I remove these (excessive headers) on each post? makes my
> message long.
>
>You would be generally ill advised to remove any of them.
Why? IMO, the List-* headers are excessive and should, at the very least,
be configurable.
12 matches
Mail list logo
