On szo, jan 12, 2013 at 18:07:56 +0100, Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> On 12-01-13 17:39, LEVAI Daniel wrote:
> > On szo, jan 12, 2013 at 14:11:12 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 01:51:26PM +0100, LEVAI Daniel wrote:
> >>> How should I put this... My question is not in regards to ho
On 1/12/13 9:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and that is the really sad thing of this thread
>
> the subject is about "REPLY-TO headers"
> but WTF - there is NO reply-to header at all
>
> reply goes back to the sender while it would go back
> to the list if the messages WOULD contain "Reoly-To"
>
> s
I am surprised by all the apologetic replies about mailing lists,
when "Reply-To:" is in fact standardized for more than 30 years,
and it has nothing to do with mailing lists.
Wietse
Citing from RFC 5322 section 3.6.2 (published 2008):
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicat
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:41:26AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I am surprised by all the apologetic replies about mailing lists,
> when "Reply-To:" is in fact standardized for more than 30 years,
> and it has nothing to do with mailing lists.
Furthermore, way upthread the original request was t
I did take this off list to Wietse, but it is worst than you make it out
to. It can even vary by sender to a list.
I apologize, a little for top posting. Another deadly list sin, but I
did not want this buried all the way at the end.
This message from Harald, if I reply to sender it goes to
On 01/12/2013 04:35 PM, Peter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13/01/13 06:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
i DO want supress duplicates it works on a lower level -> dbmail
i am receiving around 500 mails per day with duplicates still
supressed so i do not need them too in a di
Speaking of broken, this thread exists because software ignores the
"Reply-To:" header which was defined in RFC 822 30+ years ago, and
which exists to this date in RFC 5322.
So if you guys could file a bug report, that might help more than
apologizing for user interface issues.
Wietse
On 01/11/2013 03:47 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Viktor Dukhovni:
The only part that is tricky is the "command + args" column, where
users arguably may want to add/delete "-o" flags, but in general
the various "-o" flags one may want to add are not necessarily
othogonal, and it is not always safe t
On 01/13/2013 02:15 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Speaking of broken, this thread exists because software ignores the
"Reply-To:" header which was defined in RFC 822 30+ years ago, and
which exists to this date in RFC 5322.
So if you guys could file a bug report, that might help more than
apologizin
Robert Moskowitz:
> My thoughts on this is which provides a better delete function?
For main.cf, postconf already uses the following syntax:
postconf mynetworks ... show main.cf entry(or entries)
postconf -# mynetworks ... comment out main.cf entry
postconf -X mynetworks ... del
would brainded idiots like "Matthias Andree" stop to post OFF-LIST
their bullshit while they are missing that i was NOT the one
who replied off-list and started this trhead?
my thunderbird knows reply-to-list and respects reply-to and
if low-brained people are not able to recognize different
peopl
Am 13.01.2013 22:01, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> would brainded idiots like "Matthias Andree" stop to post OFF-LIST
> their bullshit while they are missing that i was NOT the one
> who replied off-list and started this trhead?
Sorry for the noise, and apologies for confusing two persons.
One has appa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Yeah, shitstorm!
Now *that's* real distributed Postfix load-testing :)!
SCNR.
- -nik
- --
* mirabilos is handling my post-1990 smartphone *
Aaah, it vibrates! Wherefor art thou, daemonic device??
PGP fingerprint: 2086 9A4B E67D 1DCD FFF6 F6C1
Am 13.01.2013 23:18, schrieb Matthias Andree:
> Am 13.01.2013 22:01, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Sorry for the noise, and apologies for confusing two persons.
> One has apparently learned their lesson, the other jumped to defend the
> trespasser and has now resorted to insults rather than limiting h
On 01/13/2013 02:54 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Robert Moskowitz:
My thoughts on this is which provides a better delete function?
For main.cf, postconf already uses the following syntax:
postconf mynetworks ... show main.cf entry(or entries)
postconf -# mynetworks ... comment out
15 matches
Mail list logo
