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.
J?rg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 02:02:16PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 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!
I illustrated what looked like to be his reason and it was valid here too,
and you even removed the proofs on purpose of not commenting.
> What he did is typical trollish behavior, as he tried to turn a technical
> based discussion into a flame war for no reason.
Oh yes, of course... Any advice to make mail communication better for
everyone on a mailing list surely is trolling and trying to bring anything
into a flame war... I am always amused by the contents of your rants.
I've never known if you sometimes believe what you say, but it's not my
problem anyway. Maybe having the last word by boring people make you feel
like you're right. But if you cannot openly communicate with people on
mailing lists, please first do not open discussions on subjects which
are known to derivate into flame wars. This month has been particularly
loaded with non-productive contents already.
> J?rg
[advertisements removed]
Willy
Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > J?rg
> [advertisements removed]
Please stop this kind of trolling, you did not remove anything here,
so do not claim to remove things....
As you don't seem to know the nettiquette:
If you believe you have some kind of problems that was used by the
OP to send a personal attack, the natural reaction is to send a
personal mail that does _not_ include a list of persons or a mailing
list.
As it does not seem to make sens to continue here, I will not reply to any
further mail that tries to discuss something from the "mail threading"
attack.
J?rg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 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.
>
> J?rg
J?rg - I see no attack. What I do see is a quite friendly notification that
your mail program appears to be omitting those headers in certain mails and
that such action is in violation of a published standard.
Your response was inflammatory, rude and very trollish. And when the person
calmly restated himself and the reason he made the original comment you again
responded in an extremely unpleasant manner.
When notified that your behavior was incorrect you pointed fingers and
yelled "He started it!" - something that *CHILDREN* do.
Since it appears that you act like a child its time to add you to my killfile
again.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.