From owner-freebsd-chat Mon May 12 15:06:33 1997 Return-Path: <owner-chat> Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA08647 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 12 May 1997 15:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (root@agora.rdrop.com [199.2.210.241]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA08631 for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 15:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA15567 for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 12 May 1997 14:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA05569; Mon, 12 May 1997 14:57:42 -0700 (PDT) To: scott@statsci.com cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Reply-to addresses In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 May 1997 13:31:21 PDT." <m0wR1kh-0006uQC@apple.statsci.com> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 14:57:42 -0700 Message-ID: <5565.863474262@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > [mind you...I agree with you, but...] > > Does that mean we should kill this message? Naw, just prune out current. If I knew this restriction existed, I'd simply have posted that particular message separately (and that's probably a good thing since otherwise people end up cc'ing announce and filling the approval queue full of junk for our postmaster to wade through). Jordan