Re: [OT]Re: Cheap Hardware

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:52:25 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:

[Please include some attribution so people have a clue as to who you are
responding to.]


Well Moe, it is threaded. But,I recognised that if this had been a busy
thread the quick and dirty way I just erased everything might lead to
confusion, I just didn't expect it would in this thread, unless people
only read new messages without threading. I'm fairly sure everyone reading
this does have said clue. No need to make it seem more complicated than
necessary.

[edit standards]

[Moe]
I think it's a bit of mis-understanding on Doug's part. While RFC1036
isn't an official standard (note the Status: line above), it's the most
common practice. One of these days, the 'Usefor' group will get their
fingers out, and finally get the replacements published. They've been
agonizing over them for quite some time.



I also think it is a misunderstanding on Doug's part, that's why I was
asking for clarification for what *he* meant before answering further. Now
I won't have to answer further.


[Rodney to Doug]
Therefore, I'm confused by what you mean by "it never happens" and what
you mean by "ineffective".

[Moe to Rodney]
Note the difference between the "Followup-To:" and "Reply-To:" headers.
They serve completely different purposes.


Note I wrote, confused by what he meant, that doesn't indicate that I was
confused about the headers, yet you replied this to me. I don't think that
is because I didn't attribute to Doug, I just think you didn't read
carefully enough. I realise you don't have much time to read these things
when you follow 85 newsgroups per day.

[Rodney]
However, this is way off topic for this spam thread.

[Moe]
The "spam thread" is off topic for a posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.


Agreed, hence I prefaced my reply with [OT].

Another old guy.
.