[email protected] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> J?rg,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > > > David Woodhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > By the way, your mailer seems to be sometimes omitting
>> > > > > In-Reply-To: and References: headers, which RFC2822 says
>> > > > > you SHOULD include in replies.
>> > > >
>> > > > Sending such accusation without knowing the reason is not polite.
>> > >
>> > > It's not an accusation -- it's merely an observation. You may
>> > > not have noticed that your mailer was misbehaving; now you _do_
>> > > know, and if you care about RFC compliance you might want to
>> > > fix it. You're not _obliged_ to fix it, of course. I just
>> > > thought you'd like to know.
>> >
>> > Well there you are: my mailer is definitely NOT missbehaving.
>> > Please do not repeat similar accusations when not knowing the
>> > reason.
>>
>> Attacking people who suggest to you they *may* have noticed an
>> anomaly is not polite at all, childish at best, and
>> counter-productive in any case.
>
> Well, then please write this to the person who did attack me for no
> reason!
>
> What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a
> technical based discussion into a flame war for no reason.
Ah, it's nice to see J?rg back to his usual self. For a while there
the headers discussion was looking almost reasonable.
BTW J?rg, thanks for the absolutely fantastic real-life flame war you
gave us at LinuxTag (by the Google booth, remember). I haven't had so
much fun in a long time. Quite a few bystanders seemed rather
entertained too.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]