On 10/5/07, Michael Glaesemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:05 , Bill Bartlett wrote:
> * Given it's an X- header, doesn't that mean the meaning of the value > is implementation dependent? What's "bogus" wrt Outlook may not be > wrt another mail system or client > * Doesn't this indicate that Outlook is broken (for some values of > broken)? Ummm. Given that some may contain the group all, I guess that's technically correct. :) It's not the only area in which Lookout! make it obvious it's broken. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
