On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 09:11:05AM -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Chris Bannister <mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz> [12-05-08 07:45]:
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 05:40:58PM -0600, David Champion wrote:
> > > * On 2008.11.27, in <20081127132013.ga17...@dracona>,
> > > * "trance...@gmx.ch" <trance...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Have you got a "%D" in your set attribution="On ... wrote:"?
>
> he probably does not as that in mutt would not accomplish what you
> describe. Look at "man muttrc" and you will find, %n <%a>
Ooops, I think I spent considerable time finding out that wrong info. :(
> > On some lists you can get flamed for including the email address in the
> > attribution, (or anywhere in the body, I presume.), ... something about
> > "address havesters". It was interesting to note that the list(s)
> > mentioned had windoze users as subscribers, i.e. vim_use and a cygwin
> > list.
>
> What makes it easier to get the addresses from the body than from the
> header? They appear both places.
It could be that the messages are archived on the web without the
headers? or M$ users don't know about headers? (Any one know how to get
outhouse to display the headers?)
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
