On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 14:35 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 02:16 PM, ais523 wrote:
> > This is going to be absolute chaos.
> Yes.
>
> > Probably best to allow date-stamps
> > in the body of the message to take precedence, especially due to the
> > existence of "received:" headers, or it mig
On 10/21/2011 02:16 PM, ais523 wrote:
> This is going to be absolute chaos.
Yes.
> Probably best to allow date-stamps
> in the body of the message to take precedence, especially due to the
> existence of "received:" headers, or it might be technically annoying to
> use.
I don't understand what you
On Fri, 2011-10-21 at 13:54 -0500, Pavitra wrote:
> I proto the following proposal, "Temporal Anomaly", AI=3:
This is going to be absolute chaos. Probably best to allow date-stamps
in the body of the message to take precedence, especially due to the
existence of "received:" headers, or it might be
I proto the following proposal, "Temporal Anomaly", AI=3:
{
Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing this text:
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that
4 matches
Mail list logo
