From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/43725
Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail
From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Does Mail-Followup-To generation work?
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:29:47 -0500
Organization: What did you have in mind?  A short, blunt, human pyramid?
Message-ID: <a5os7n$889$1@quimby2.netfonds.no>
References: <m3bse8s40l.fsf@fermat.mts.jhu.edu>
	<m33czkz2cm.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<m3vgcg5iw6.fsf_-_@fermat.mts.jhu.edu>
	<87664gp6c8.fsf@paradoxical.net> <m3pu2o5h0h.fsf@fermat.mts.jhu.edu>
	<vaf3czkt3xh.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<m33czkt3ec.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<vaf4rk0rniv.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1015018551 8457 195.204.10.66 (1 Mar 2002 21:35:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2002 21:35:51 GMT
Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13])
	by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 16gugw-0002CD-00; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 22:35:50 +0100
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists)
	by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1)
	id 16gubM-0002i8-00; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:30:04 -0600
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:30:06 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66])
	by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA08333
	for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:29:55 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: (qmail 5697 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2002 21:29:48 -0000
Original-Received: (qmail 5692 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2002 21:29:47 -0000
Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (qmailr@129.22.96.25)
  by gnus.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2002 21:29:47 -0000
Original-Received: (qmail 3407 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2002 21:30:09 -0000
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: <vaf4rk0rniv.fsf@INBOX.auto.gnus.tok.lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de> (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's
 message of "Fri, 01 Mar 2002 22:22:48 +0100")
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org
Original-Lines: 11
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) Emacs/20.7
 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:43725
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:43725

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) wrote:
> But on the other hand, why not change the MFT code to always look at
> the group parameters?

Because it's in message.el and thus shouldn't depend on Gnus group
parameters, I guess.  But it could look at the group parameters only
if available, as well as the variables it uses now.  Would that
violate any encapsulation principle here?


paul