From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/10797 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael R Cook Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: indigestion Date: 24 Apr 1997 10:53:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035150609 26479 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:50:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA23731 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:24:10 -0700 Original-Received: from claymore.vcinet.com (claymore.vcinet.com [208.205.12.23]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:53:32 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 14291 invoked by uid 504); 24 Apr 1997 14:51:12 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 14288 invoked from network); 24 Apr 1997 14:51:11 -0000 Original-Received: from cognex-bh.cognex.com (198.232.30.66) by claymore.vcinet.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 1997 14:51:11 -0000 Original-Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cognex-bh.cognex.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id KAA20480 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:50:41 -0400 Original-Received: from isys.com by cognex-bh.cognex.com via smap (3.2) id xma020474; Thu, 24 Apr 97 10:50:24 -0400 Original-Received: from erawan.cognex.com (erawan.cognex.com [10.10.1.80]) by cognex.cognex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA17492 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:53:09 -0400 Original-Received: by erawan.cognex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10369; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:53:06 -0400 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 24 Apr 1997 14:16:53 +0200 Original-Lines: 11 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.34 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10797 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:10797 >>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: LMI> Well, the digest is in a brain-dead bogus format, so I'd suggest bonking LMI> the maintainer of that mailing list over the head until he/she decides LMI> to create proper digests. I had a feeling you might say that. Is there a document (rfc?) that describes what the usual digest format is? It'd probably be most effective to bonk the maintainer with a document. Thanks for the reply.