piercing corporate FW outbound

[p.lussier at comcast.net]

In a message dated: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 06:00:37 +0900
Derek Martin said:

>Damn, foiled by annoying reply-to headers.  This reply was intended to
>be private.

Gee, that's _never_ happened to *you* before ;)

> No harm was done in this case,

The only "harm" I've ever seen you cause has been to cause yourself 
some rather amusing embarrassment :)

>This list carries abundant headers that allow mailers which are not
>brain-dead to automatically reply to the list; therefore

OH NO! Not THIS discussion again!  Look, no offense meant to anyone 
with any particular mail client, brain dead or not, but the decision 
to set the deaders to what they are has been made, and we've beaten 
this horse until it great-great-grand-children are dead and buried.

Please, learn to deal with it.

>Yes, yes, I realize I should check my headers before I hit the send key;

Yes, you should, especially since I've personally witnessed you screw 
this up when there weren't any headers "improperly" set.

Every list is different, some set the headers, some don't.  It's up 
to the readers of every list to figure out how each list they've 
subscribed to behaves and adjust their behavior appropriately.

If there is ever an international header standard set, I promise you,
we'll adhere to it.  Until then, check your headers.

>This message is posted from an invalid address.
>Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail.
>Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

And you're bitching to us about headers?




-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!