[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there
|
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
|
Subject: |
Re: mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there |
|
Date: |
Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:13:22 +0900 |
Ivan Shmakov writes:
> Won’t Mail-Followup-To: suffice? Granted, the support for that
> isn’t universal, yet still widespread enough.
Depends on your definition of "widespread enough". I don't think it
is, but YMMV.
- Re: Network security manager, (continued)
- EWW buffers, Ivan Shmakov, 2014/11/19
- Re: EWW buffers, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/11/19
- bug#19109: eww-setup-buffer: use set-buffer instead of switch-to-buffer, Ivan Shmakov, 2014/11/19
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Message not available
- mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there, Ivan Shmakov, 2014/11/23
- Re: bug#19109: mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there, Glenn Morris, 2014/11/23
- Re: mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there, Ivan Shmakov, 2014/11/24
- Re: mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- mailing control@, but requesting that no replies be sent there, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/11/24
- Re: EWW buffers, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/19
- Re: EWW buffers, Ivan Shmakov, 2014/11/20
- Re: EWW buffers, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/11/21
- Re: Network security manager, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/19
- Re: Network security manager, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/19
- Re: Network security manager, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/20
- Re: Network security manager, Stefan Monnier, 2014/11/20
- Re: Network security manager, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/11/21
- Re: Network security manager, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen, 2014/11/21