This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
RE: WindowsXP - bash BUG
- To: cygwin-xfree at sources dot redhat dot com
- Subject: RE: WindowsXP - bash BUG
- From: Suhaib Siddiqi <ssiddiqi at inspirepharm dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:58:49 -0400
> Lets not get into this discussion. It can get religious.
No X-Religious talks, only XFree86 talks ;-)
Suhaib
>There are
> several touted benefits and problems on both sides. To date, all the
> cygwin lists are run with the standards side of the argument. (Don't
> alter mail message, only the envelope (and adding a header that is not
> present is altering the message )). That was all I wanted to convey.
>
> If you wish to discuss it please take it off-list. I
> recommend you do a
> google search about this, as there are a couple of white papers
> summarising all the issues.
>
> Rob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Staf Verhaegen" <staf.verhaegen@imec.be>
> To: <cygwin-xfree@sources.redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:28 PM
> Subject: Re: WindowsXP - bash BUG
>
>
> > Pierre Muller wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The most obvious reason is that if any sender makes
> the error to
> > > asked for recieve acknowledgment and if one person that is
> > > on the mailing list has a mailer set up to automatically
> > > reply to this ackowledgment, but also sets the
> acknowladge request,
> > > you easily get into any endless loop of ackowledgment emails !
> >
> > Remove the acknowledgement request from mails where you add a
> reply-to:
> > header.
> > BTW, all most of the mailing lists I'm subscribed to include this
> reply-to:
> > header so I don't think there can be that much of a problem.
> >
> > Staf.
> >
> >
> +----------------------------------------+--------------------
> ---------+
> > |Staf Verhaegen (staf.verhaegen@imec.be) |ADRESS: IMEC vzw. -
> ASP/LITHO|
> > |tel: 016/ 281 783 | Kapeldreef 75
> |
> > |fax: 016/ 281 214 | 3001 Leuven
> (Belgium)|
> >
> +----------------------------------------+--------------------
> ---------+
> > For every tool there are at least 2 uses: the one it was
> designed for
> > and the other for which it wasn't.
> >
>