From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/7576
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Western US Red Gnus mirror
Date: 13 Aug 1996 15:09:35 +0200
Organization: The Church of Emacs
Sender: abraham@dina.kvl.dk
Message-ID: <rj91bjtoq8.fsf@kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk>
References: <m2u3u7bzho.fsf@deanna.miranova.com>
	<ycqd90vhf8w.fsf@lola-granola.MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035147870 7692 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:04:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:04:30 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA17182 for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:28:26 -0700
Original-Received: from elc1.dina.kvl.dk (elc1.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.228]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <PAA11985@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:09:25 +0200
Original-Received: from kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk (kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk [130.225.40.209]) by elc1.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id PAA16243; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:05:52 +0200
Original-Received: (abraham@localhost) by kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk (8.6.12/8.6.4) id PAA16566; Tue, 13 Aug 1996 15:09:35 +0200
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
X-Face: +kRV2]2q}lixHkE{U)mY#+6]{AH=yN~S9@IFiOa@X6?GM<U{B+4e{k79.Ya{~':DblFPCg$
 @60,BfLv2@SKZ19cMWK0/C'v;tM:|6B'R}U1rp6CL&kN({9<zF/V{:JCg27yC)9oZjeqcQawzKfiNL
 t9}`vjmK["dRQC/qGFQq"%u|Q`:6{"Rz}b(dnl_"3$Jtqimi>|8MBp/
In-Reply-To: Greg Stark's message of 13 Aug 1996 04:15:11 -0400
Original-Lines: 8
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.32
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:7576
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:7576


Greg Stark <gsstark@MIT.EDU> writes:

> I consider this message exhibit A in support of the claim that courtesy
> messages are absolutely incorrect and the feature should never have been
> added. 

Why?