Re: [Was: fastdep_0.16-2_i386.deb] [OT] Group reply

2003-11-11 Thread Mike Markley
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:58:20PM +0100, blacksheep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering why the reply in this ML is not on > the ML itself, but on the author of each message. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html You do mention using mutt, though, so I suggest yo

Re: [Was: fastdep_0.16-2_i386.deb] [OT] Group reply

2003-11-11 Thread Mike Markley
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:58:20PM +0100, blacksheep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm just wondering why the reply in this ML is not on > the ML itself, but on the author of each message. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html You do mention using mutt, though, so I suggest yo

[Was: fastdep_0.16-2_i386.deb] [OT] Group reply

2003-11-10 Thread blacksheep
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Anno Domini Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:48:37AM -0800, Joshua Kwan Dixit: > Your reply appears to be all blank. I'm just wondering why the reply in this ML is not on the ML itself, but on the author of each mes

[Was: fastdep_0.16-2_i386.deb] [OT] Group reply

2003-11-10 Thread blacksheep
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Anno Domini Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:48:37AM -0800, Joshua Kwan Dixit: > Your reply appears to be all blank. I'm just wondering why the reply in this ML is not on the ML itself, but on the author of each mes