Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 5 May 2011 18:54:22 -0400
From:      Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org>
To:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: rox-fm
Message-ID:  <BANLkTimpvEZ+OK12xSzXZCqx0ozngUn+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4DC1BEA8.6030108@gmail.com> <20110504224931.9ffd5682.dcdowse@gmx.net> <4DC1E23E.3020001@gmail.com> <20110505014556.50dcea0e.dcdowse@gmx.net> <BANLkTi=Csvs+3C7-XJGUDn43Jzf-JNZZ4g@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikTb0Ckbc7FM_Ka2WZa22TvVdbsZA@mail.gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:35 PM, David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Alejandro Imass <ait@p2ee.org> wrote:
>> I wish someone could clearly explain why the reply-to field should
>> ONLY have the mailing-list address, or at least have as the default
>> address and not the other way around as it is here!
>
> This is one of the all-time great religious wars of the internet, on
> par with vi vs. Emacs and top-posting vs. bottom-posting.
>
> See http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html for one
> side of the argument, and
> http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.html for the other side.
>

Man, that's hilarious! Using the same rhetoric but backwards!

Very cool read... and I was even kinda shy to ask, I mean so many
years on lists and I'd thought I had heard something on this respect
but never imagined it was actually a religious point.

Thanks again,

--
Alejandro



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTimpvEZ+OK12xSzXZCqx0ozngUn+Ug>