Sender:	rmh AT interlaced DOT net
To:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] Reply-to fields
References:	<1630 DOT 9703172315 AT pulteney DOT dcs DOT st-andrews DOT ac DOT uk>
Mime-Version:	1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.105)
From:	Richard Hoskins <rmh AT interlaced DOT net>
Date:	17 Mar 1997 22:23:21 -0500
In-Reply-To:	dg@dcs.st-and.ac.uk's message of Mon, 17 Mar 97 23:15:49 +0000
Message-ID:	<m3u3m9sx1y.fsf@sorites.net>
Lines:	44

dg AT dcs DOT st-and DOT ac DOT uk writes:

> [...]
> >Then how would you easily reply to *just* the author?  We should
> >*discourage* replies to this list.
> 
> Look at the `From:' line at the top and fill it in manually.
> 

Why can't the people with the broken mail readers do this?

> >What sort of toy mail clients are you using?  
>
> exmh & mh. mh is the most powerful mail reader ever written. You
> should know, you use Emacs.

non sequitur.

> Really, though, we should shift the whole thing to a
> newsgroup. Mailing lists weren't *designed* for this sort of
> volume. 

I think the volume is in part due to the recent OpenDOS release.  Give
it a year.  If the volume is still this high, I'll agree with
you.  As it stands now, I'd argue against it in the discussion phase
and vote `NO' in the voting.  (If it got that far.)

Newsgroups are a lot easier to start than they are to stop.  (Witness
comp.sources.*, comp.lang.perl, etc.)  Prudence dictates a list
demonstrate a *sustained* interest.

In the meanwhile, if some folks are finding their software
inadequate... well, they know what they can do.

> but lets not start a my-mail-reader-is-bigger-than-YOUR-mail-reader
> argument, shall we?

  PID  PPID PRI  NI   SIZE   RSS STA TTY TIME COMMAND   
 7845  3619   1   0   11184  9108 S    2  0:17 emacs 

You should see it when it gets older. :)

-- 
I just forgot my whole philosophy of life!!!

- Raw text -