[ On Friday, June 4, 2004 at 13:55:15 (-0700), Steve Lamb wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] Delay 220 greeting to reduce spam?
>
> Hm, neat. So tell me again why you're trolling on the Exim mailing list?
You can call it what you will (and it won't bother me :-) but I do have
the same right to participate in this forum as you or any other Exim
user and/or maintainer.
Someone's got to keep everyone on the straight & narrow standards path
around here! ;-)
> Oh, and let's not mention this little idiocy of yours:
> Reply-To: Exim User's Mailing List <exim-users%exim.org@localhost>
Perhaps you should ask <exim-users-admin@???> about the specific
reasons for _my_ use of that addressing form in that situtation....
Some folks don't have to jump through such hoops, but I'm not one of
them.
> Let me get this straight. You CC me on a topic but you don't want CC'd in
> return
I'm only following your (MUA's) own instructions. You can ask me to
reply to the list too if you like and I (or rather my MUA) would
certainly honour your request. That's what the reply-to header was
invented for in the first place, after all. Some people like to receive
multiple copies -- I don't, but I have no idea even yet what your true
preferences are (you don't seem to mind so long as you get to CC the
sender back in return, but that's kinda weird so I don't want to jump to
conclusions).
> so you instead, cook up a bogus reply-to which uses a hack which is
> often turned off in most Exim installs? That about it?
"Bogus"? (not -- just uncommon)
Do I care if it's turned off in most Exim installs? (no -- that's not
the point, see above)
Well, I suppose I could try "@exim.org;exim-users", but since the
addressing form I'm using has the desired effect I don't see the point
to wasting any time experimenting with other addressing forms.
Oh, what the heck. Once just for fun....
[[ obviously the <@exim.org:exim-users> trick didn't work ]]
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
