RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-29 Thread Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Hughes, Bill wrote: > I'll have to check the rfcs about mailing list protocols sometime. This may be a starting place: http://search.cpan.org/~mstevens/Mail-ListDetector-0.29/MANIFEST -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: ht

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Dave Korn > > I mis-spoke and must correct myself, despite the massive o-t-ness of this > thread : > > > In doing so, he completely ignores the *third* option, > > "Reply to just the list"

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent > > > *sigh* No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work. > > Lists where the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list > > address are broken. See > >

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Hughes, Bill
It may be Bad Form to respond to oneself but : > Sent: 28 January 2004 13:44 From: Hughes, Bill > > > Sent: 28 January 2004 13:18 From: Dave Korn ..snip.. > > 3>It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she > > will direct a > > response. > > > > Again, I'll agree that munging sh

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Hughes, Bill
> Sent: 28 January 2004 13:18 From: Dave Korn > > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent > > > *sigh* No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work. > > Lists where the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list > > address are broken. See > >

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Dave Korn
> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Dave Korn I mis-spoke and must correct myself, despite the massive o-t-ness of this thread : > In doing so, he completely ignores the *third* option, > "Reply to just the list" - in fact, such an option is not > mentioned onc

RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Dave Korn
> -Original Message- > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent > *sigh* No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work. > Lists where the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list > address are broken. See > Without hav

Re: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Brian Dessent
Steven Hartland wrote: > > Brian Dessent wrote: > > *sigh* No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work. Lists where > > the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list address are broken. See > > In fact, you'll find > > that the mailing l

Re: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Steven Hartland
Brian Dessent wrote: > *sigh* No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work. Lists where > the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list address are broken. See > In fact, you'll find > that the mailing list software used here does nothing

Re: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU

2004-01-28 Thread Brian Dessent
Steven Hartland wrote: > That's one for the notes for the future. A totally new subject and > new content tends to indicate a new thread to my mail reader > but I suppose all are not created even. Real email programs use the "In-Reply-To" and/or "References" headers to determine which message an