At 12:02 -0700 20 May 2002, Professional Software Engineering
<PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org> wrote:
At 13:32 2002-05-20 -0500, Aaron Schrab did say:
Ironically, due to a long standing bug in Eudora (which has since been
duplicated in other mailers), this method probably wouldn't work for the
message to which I'm replying.
You mean your reply to my message?
No, I mean that your previous reply (the one with Message-ID
5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020520103843(_dot_)07724bd0(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org).
It's ironic
because the very message in which you described a way of determining
that a reply isn't spam would have failed the very test that it
described.
The following appeared nicely in the headers of your post to the list:
In-reply-to:
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020520103843(_dot_)07724bd0(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org>
Yes, I'm not using Eudora (or other MUA that's copied its bugs) so my
In-reply-to: headers aren't broken. I quoted the broken In-reply-to
header generated by your copy of Eudora in my previous message. But,
here it is again:
In-reply-to:
<Pine(_dot_)A41(_dot_)4(_dot_)10(_dot_)10205201007520(_dot_)117900-100000(_at_)winery(_dot_)garlic(_dot_)c
om>
Note the space near the end of the message-ID.
--
Aaron Schrab aaron(_at_)schrab(_dot_)com http://www.schrab.com/aaron/
I don't think anything makes my show look good. -- Jerry Springer
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail