From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38430
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Michael.Cook@cisco.com
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: message-subject-re
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:11:49 -0400
Sender: zzz@cisco.com
Message-ID: <g08bskyeid6.fsf@zzz.cisco.com>
References: <g08snea90zx.fsf@zzz.cisco.com>
 <m3n14i3ejt.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<g088zg2g1fr.fsf@zzz.cisco.com> <m3elpu3do0.fsf@multivac.cwru.edu>
	<ilu4rqqr79c.fsf@barbar.josefsson.org> <m3k7zmvem6.fsf@enberg.org>
	<heuqve4q.fsf@hschmi22.userfqdn.rz-online.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035174293 22343 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:24:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:24:53 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <zzz@cisco.com>
Return-Path: <zzz@cisco.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 9173 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:12:15 -0000
Original-Received: from frampton.cisco.com (161.44.253.15)
  by gnus.org with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:12:15 -0000
Original-Received: from zzz.cisco.com (zzz.cisco.com [10.89.5.93])
	by frampton.cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA24286
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:11:49 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: (from zzz@localhost)
	by zzz.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA22133;
	Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:11:49 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: zzz.cisco.com: zzz set sender to zzz@zzz.cisco.com using -f
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: <heuqve4q.fsf@hschmi22.userfqdn.rz-online.de> (Frank Schmitt's
 message of "29 Aug 2001 21:51:17 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7
Original-Lines: 13
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38430
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38430

Frank Schmitt <Azzrael@rz-online.de> writes:

> Henrik Enberg <henrik@enberg.org> writes:
>
>>Ick, does this mean that we're going to see people posting with Gnus
>>using Sv: style subject lines and non-standard sig separators?
>>
>>I think some stuff _should_ be hardcoded.
>
> 100% acknowledge.

well, all i really wanted to do was suppress the "Re:".
that seems reasonable, no?