Re: Ftoomsh MUD?
Mon, 19 Apr 93 21:11:28 EST
> From firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU.AU Mon Apr 19 20:25 EST 1993
> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 19:51:39 +1000
> Originator: email@example.com
> From: Luke McNeice <firstname.lastname@example.org.EDU.AU>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Ftoomsh MUD?
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: The Programmers' Society Mailing List
> Earlier Matthew Gream wrote:
> > I don't care if you or anyone else enjoys personal attacks, but
> > maybe they can be down without dragging down the "quality" of
> > the list.
> > Flame me without broadcasting the list, if you please.
> sorry, you lost that right after your actions affected the
> general UTS users. (And anyay ... where's the quality been so
> far ??)
> firstname.lastname@example.org | "Who ever said love
> IRC's ScoobyDoo | has no boundaries was
> #define Luke Yuppyscum | a fool " - J. Higgins
This is getting rather dull!
Can you PLEASE consider (again) reconfiguration of the list such that
the From:, From, Originator: and Reply-To: headers all show the
address of the author of the article and only the Cc: header shows
progsoc@nospam.... This way, we only get junk in the list if people REALLY want
to put it here.
(If indeed Luke's inanities were made public as a result of him
not knowing how to drive his mailer, he and others would be unable to
accidentally post similar junk.)
This will become more of an issue as the intended readership of the
list grows. For those who don't know, most mailers provide at least
two reply options, one to reply to the author of the message and one to
reply to all who are reading. The current configuration of progsoc@nospam....
subverts this fairly common feature such that the user is forced
to type out the author's address in full if (s)he wishes to send a
Comments invited from all readers please.