8 Jul
2002
8 Jul
'02
1:58 p.m.
Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
Um, I think the canonical spelling is "X-No-Archive:". You might want
to try another test with that.
Does the list
archiver honor the 'X-NoArchive: Yes' line?
No. Would anyone mind if "[cctalk]" was appended
to all subject headers sent to
cctalk?
Appended or prepended? Either way, yes, I mind. I'll deal with it,
but I'd rather not have to.
And in contrast to Chris, I'm not at all sympathetic to people who say
they need this to sort their received mail; the list provides other
headers that are usable for selecting cctalk mail. For example,
"Sender: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org"quot;.
-Frank McConnell
8 Jul
8 Jul
2:59 p.m.
Re prepending (or appending) "[cctalk]" on the subject line, I agree with
Frank ... I'd hate it. I'd live, but I'm much happier having it gone.
Anyone who can filter on subject *should* be able to filter on another
header; anyone who can't filter probably wants to get the digest version
anyway.
Norm
On 8 Jul 2002, Frank McConnell wrote:
Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
[...]
Would anyone mind if "[cctalk]" was
appended to all subject headers sent to
cctalk?
Appended or prepended? Either way, yes, I mind. I'll deal with it,
but I'd rather not have to.
And in contrast to Chris, I'm not at all sympathetic to people who say
they need this to sort their received mail; the list provides other
headers that are usable for selecting cctalk mail. For example,
"Sender: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org"quot;.
8250
days inactive
8250
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
fmc＠reanimators.org -
norm-classiccmp＠docnorm.com