From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 10 10:26:23 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA12794 for current-outgoing; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:26:23 -0700 Received: from grunt.grondar.za (grunt.grondar.za [196.7.18.129]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA12780 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:26:03 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grunt.grondar.za (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA05495; Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:23:33 +0200 Message-Id: <199504101723.TAA05495@grunt.grondar.za> X-Authentication-Warning: grunt.grondar.za: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: "Rodney W. Grimes" cc: mmead@goof.com (matthew c. mead), joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: talk - mesg y only Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 19:23:31 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > No - I mean why does talk require me to have my messages on to > > INITIATE a talk with someone else. It shouldn't! :-0 > > I think it should, so that if the person you are trying to talk to > either a) doesnt want to talk to you and can quick do a ``write > bugger off, I'm busy :-)'' or b) talk back to you later after > he comes back from a coffee break. > > It's not polite to initiate a talk session from a proc that does > not have messages enabled. It's bloody irritating having someone trying to talk(1) to you, you are trying to respond to him and the talkd(8) is telling you "bugger off, he does not have messages enabled". This is a classic newbie cock-up, (and one which _REALLY_ irritates me when I do it to others...) (That is why _I_ submitted the change!!) M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200