On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:52 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:03 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote: > >> Paul Johnson wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote: > >>> > >>>> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting > >> at. If > >>>> aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong. > >>> I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked > >> and is > >>> documented to work, why change it now? > >> Because it's error-prone. Because it's a poor-quality design. > > > > Might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself: The same > could > > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA. > > What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain > text, not HTML.
The message I am replying to, as was the one in question, is HTML, not plain text. > And even if I had sent HTML, how the hell would that change the truth > of my statement? We're talking about Debian and improving it. My MUA > has nothing to do with that. If you got your MUA via Debian, and you don't know you're sending HTML, I suspect that's a bug we need to fix, eh? -- Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
