From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/8463
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: mailto:address?subject=subject URL support
Date: 22 Oct 1996 10:40:40 +0200
Sender: sb@metis.no
Message-ID: <whhgnntmrb.fsf@norne.metis.no>
References: <rjzq1gcw53.fsf@kolmogorov.dina.kvl.dk>
	<199610021459.HAA00395@newman.in.aventail.com>
	<wh4tjounnd.fsf@norne.metis.no> <x6vic3bzra.fsf@eyesore.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.84)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035148620 12262 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:17:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:17:00 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: (qmail 20355 invoked from smtpd); 22 Oct 1996 09:18:06 -0000
Original-Received: from riker.diamond-lane.net (root@206.190.83.4)
  by deanna.miranova.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 1996 09:18:06 -0000
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by riker.diamond-lane.net (8.8.2/8.8.0) with SMTP id CAA28818 for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:20:16 -0700
Original-Received: from gw.metis.no (abel.metis.no [193.90.64.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <KAA02847@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:41:16 +0200
Original-Received: by gw.metis.no (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11430; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:40:45 +0100
Original-Received: by hub.metis.no (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18798; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:40:41 +0200
Original-Received: by client.metis.no (8.6.11/8.6.12) id KAA09577; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 10:40:41 +0200
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 22 Oct 1996 01:37:13 +0100
Original-Lines: 12
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8463
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8463

>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>:

> Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no> writes:
>> Hum, yes.  If I remember correctly, it was never meant to be
>> published.  It was just meant as a hidden implementation detail,
>> because they used the same code to do several things.

> So should I apply the patch or not? 

I can't see it doing any harm, and the functionality it provides is
useful (note: I'm not saying it's the right way of doing it, only that
I can't think of any objections, from where I'm sitting)