[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)

To: mint@fishpool.com
Subject: Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
From: Michael Schwingen <rincewind@discworld.dascon.de>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 15:19:28 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.MNT.4.10.9911181506180.148-100000@rakastaja>; from Martin-Eric Racine on Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 03:08:39PM +0200
Mail-followup-to: mint@fishpool.com
References: <19991118124607.C10897@tubul.dascon.de> <Pine.MNT.4.10.9911181506180.148-100000@rakastaja>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 03:08:39PM +0200, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:
> > this is a bad idea, and get a decent MUA instead.
> 
> Pine always asks if I wanna reply to From or Reply-To, so who's
> got an indecent MUA here?

Why should I have to think about that for every reply?

RFC822 indicates that replies shall be sent to the reply-to address if
present, so why should the MUA ask me about that?

cu
Michael
-- 
Michael Schwingen, Ahornstrasse 36, 52074 Aachen

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>

References:
- Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
  - From: Michael Schwingen <rincewind@discworld.dascon.de>
- Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
  - From: Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] 68k kernel
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] List policies (was: Pine 4.20)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread