8 8 after my vote;)
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Alex Shnitman wrote:
| Hi, Shlomi!
|
| On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:06:46AM +0200, you wrote the following:
|
| > Is it possible to remove the reply-to field only for people who wish
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Genady Osnis wrote:
> /is it the header that made messages appier twice on the list ?
> If it is then I'm against it.
Not exactly. The problem is not with the header itself, but with the fact
that some people post to this list as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the reply-to
address is [E
Hi, Joe!
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 01:51:27PM +0200, you wrote the following:
> If the reply to feild would only have the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address
> in it, then I would be for it.
Don't reply here, go vote on the poll. That's what it's there for.
--
Alex Shnitman
If the reply to feild would only have the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address
in it, then I would be for it.
-Yossie
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
ech
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: reply-to field":
> It is.
>
> Read http://www.halisp.net/halisp/reply-to-harmful.html for complete
> details.
>
Now Shachar, that's not fair... I thought no propaganda during the poll :(
As I said (and expla
il: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hadera, Israel ICQ: 6539492
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Alex Shnitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 6:18 PM
> Subject: reply-to field
>
> > Hi,
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 6:18 PM
Subject: reply-to field
> Hi,
>
> Due to popular demand the Reply-To: field has been removed from the
> mailing list postings.
>
>
> --
> Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.
Hi, Shlomi!
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:06:46AM +0200, you wrote the following:
> Is it possible to remove the reply-to field only for people who wish not
> to have it? Hence, that one can send a message to linux-il-request with
> the body of "remove/add reply-to" in-order
In that case, 2 mailing lists with 7 users in each.
Haggai Sachs.
- Original Message -
From: "Omer Zak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Linux-IL mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: reply-to field
> In
Is it possible to remove the reply-to field only for people who wish not
to have it? Hence, that one can send a message to linux-il-request with
the body of "remove/add reply-to" in-order to have or not have this field.
If our mailing-list manager have this feature, it might be a goo
In such a case, we split the list into two (like the split between newbies
and oldtimers), and people will crosspost to both of them, and people will
subscribe to both of them, and will get each message 2-3 times anyway.
[Ducking into cover]
--- Omer
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000, Shachar Shemesh wrote about "Re: reply-to field":
> Ok, so as for this minute (after my vote), the result is tied (7 in favour, 7
> against).
>
> What happens if that remains the situation?
Well, just like the big-endians and little-endians in Gul
Ok, so as for this minute (after my vote), the result is tied (7 in favour, 7
against).
What happens if that remains the situation?
Shacahr
"Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo" wrote:
> NH>> P.S. Yes, voting in this egroups poll is not very convenient, and it forces
> NH>> you to
NH>> P.S. Yes, voting in this egroups poll is not very convenient, and it forces
NH>> you to give out your email address. I hope that people will get past that
NH>> (egroups is a respectable company, so far, and I don't know of any evidence
NH>> of it spamming).
Well, except that they do it in
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote about "Re: reply-to field":
> HM>> Add me in the pro-reply-to camp. This would make it 50-50... Can someone
>
> I'm with you, Herouth. :)
Don't forget to vote in our poll,
http://www.egroups.com/
Hi, Herouth!
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 11:25:47AM +0200, you wrote the following:
> > Actually, I counted myself, Gilad and Aviram against, Nadav and you in
> > favour.
> >
> > You can say that 60% of the votes were in favour of removing.
>
> Add me in the pro-reply-to camp. This would make it 5
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
> Actually, I counted myself, Gilad and Aviram against, Nadav and you in
> favour.
>
> You can say that 60% of the votes were in favour of removing.
>
Add me in the pro-reply-to camp. This would make it 50-50... Can someone
*please* set up a poll about this before this
> ---
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.schapiro.org
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alex Shnitman wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Due to popular demand the Reply-To: field has been removed from the
> > mailing list postings.
> >
&g
ent.
Schlomo
Sincerely,
Schlomo Schapiro
---
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.schapiro.org
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alex Shnitman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to popular demand the Reply-To: field has been removed from the
> mailing list postings.
>
>
> --
&
Hi,
Due to popular demand the Reply-To: field has been removed from the
mailing list postings.
--
Alex Shnitman| http://www.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] +---
http://alexsh.hectic.netUIN 188956PGP key on web page
20 matches
Mail list logo
