* David W. Tamkin <dattier(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> [02-18-03 18:48]:
chop..chop..
Good old English. I didn't mean "so thoughtful" but "of that type,"
the type who directs Reply-To: to the list on his/her own posts when
the list software does not. As you see, even later in the morning I
still didn't have all cylinders firing and didn't notice the
ambiguity of that phrasing.
Notice that your post was *to* the *list* and I responded to the
*list*. No more or less. I saw *no* hint that the post was ?intended?
to be ??private??.
The note I'd add to the text of my copy is to be extra careful not to
send the reply both publicly and privately, because the author is the
kind who really hates to get a privately mailed copy of a post to a
list. Some people think it means "you're not smart enough to
understand my answer if you read it only once" and get absolutely
infuriated when someone does it. Actually, I think I'd just strip
Reply-To: from the head and move it to the top of the body. There it
would catch my attention.
I received no *private* reply. If you replied to the list and my addr,
the dup was dropped by procmail and the original directed to my
procmail.list box. I read enough mail that I do *not* want dups. If
privacy was intended, no posting should have been made to the list and
I would have responded (perhaps) directly to you.
Your 2nd response was also public. Had it been private, I would have
responded privately. But you opted to attack my character, to besmear
my reputation. I will not answer in "kind" as I am not "of that type".
Yes, that was my original post. Nobody could tell from it that I had
meant to send it privately and that posting it to the list was a
mistake. The only hint of a clue was that it had no attribution
above my quote from you (in private email I'd expect you to recognize
your own words and not need to be told "you were the one who said
this"), but for all anyone except me knew that, rather than the
addressing, could have been the part where I made a careless mistake.
My *mind*reading* abilities, aparently, do not reach this level. Being
a poor dumb irishman, perhaps a baseball bat would have better conveyed
your *intent*.
No further character assassination is necessary or expected.
--
Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes<
http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535
icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail