Re: Reply-To header

[Steffen Klemer <masterofheap gmx net>]

<bashful>
I didn't wanted to remove that feature.
I also want a standart compliant behaviour!
But I also want usability.
What's wrong with that new feature?
It defaults to disabled, but whoever likes it can enable it.
It wouldn't even break any standart...
Reply to group would stay were it is.
</bashful>

Hope I now have explained my idea in the right way!

cu
/Steffen

-- 
/"\
\ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign    |           Pohl's law:
  X  - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail   | Nothing is so good that somebody,
/ \ - NO MSWord docs in e-mail|    somewhere, will not hate it.

Am 2002.02.20 14:40 schrieb(en) Rikke D . Giles:
> On 2002.02.20 04:58 Brian Stafford wrote:
> 
>> <cynical>
>> Going by the reactions over the last year or so to every attempt to 
>> improve standards compliant behaviour in Balsa, I wonder at times why 
>> any of us bother trying.  It seems like users are far happier with any 
>> old crap that fails to interoperate reliably so long as the behaviour 
>> fits their particular prejudice about what is supposed to happen.
>> </cynical>
> 
> Brian,
> <on the soapbox>
> Count me out on this.  I find Balsa as it is to be logical in how it 
> handles mail.  I'm all for compliance.  In the year or so I've been using 
> Balsa it's improved tremendously.  Thanks to everyone for their good work 
> on it!  So I'm one user who votes no for keeping the old crap and the old 
> bugs and the old misbehaviours.  Bring on the new crap!
> 
> Rikke
> </off the soapbox>
> _______________________________________________
> balsa-list mailing list
> balsa-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
>