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