On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 12:14 +0000, Philip Hazel wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > Out of interest, do you happen to recall if did they explicitly _want_
> > the old data repeated, or would 'return_path_on_delivery' have sufficed
> > to satisfy them too?
>
> Can't remember.
Now why doesn't that surprise me? :)
T'was a rhetorical question with implicit suggestion.
