<quoting trimmed to stay readable> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:30:06 EDT, Wayne Topa writes: >Quoting Robert Waldner([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:39:12 +0200, Eduard Bloch writes: >> >The mail was not intended for you only. >> >> Yes, I got that. I mentioned it even. But something along the lines of >> "ignored Reply-To ´cause of" would´ve been nice. >> > The mail he Replied To didn't have a Reply-To header, this one does > tho.
It did, he replied to [EMAIL PROTECTED], which, as received here via the list, had the following headers: .-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <...> Resent-date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:25:54 +0200 <...> Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <...> Reply-to: Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <...> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Resent-from: debian-user@lists.debian.org X-mailing-list: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/164598 X-loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org Precedence: list Resent-sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: picture browser for debian From: Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:24:55 +0200 .-.-.-.-.-.-.-. But I´d rather let that thread die now, I fear that neither I nor others will get any more benefit out of it. I´m tempted to start a real flame-war, but I don´t have the time for such ;-) cheers, &r<again, reply-to set>w -- -- Gordon's Law: If you think you have the -- solution, the question was poorly phrased. ----
pgpwu2QjWHSTp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
