From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4293 invoked from network); 9 Oct 1997 17:41:42 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 9 Oct 1997 17:41:42 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA00961; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710091734.NAA02603@luomat.peak.org> Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 4.2mach v148) In-Reply-To: X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 4.2mach (Enhance 2.0b6.3) From: Timothy J Luoma Date: Thu, 9 Oct 97 13:34:02 -0400 To: mason@primenet.com.au Subject: Re: Archiving patches (Was: Current state of 3.1.2) cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu References: <199710081443.KAA27464@math.gatech.edu> <199710081646.MAA02053@luomat.peak.org> Resent-Message-ID: <"49Q043.0.yE.aLHFq"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/3570 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu Author: mason@primenet.com.au (Geoff Wing) Original-Date: 9 Oct 1997 05:53:32 GMT Message-ID: > Downside: lazy/ignorant people don't remove Cc: lines so you get lots of > followups which aren't always relevant, and you can't just weed out > messages which reference other valid patches because they may be > patches too. Then you get lots of people who won't put proper > Subject lines on when the topic changes. True enough. So I'd only archive the posts which had the subject which began with PATCH: so Re: PATCH wouldn't be a problem. However, those who use Novell Groupwise who have decided to change the standard and now use: PATCH -reply would break it. TjL