On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:18:51 GMT, cl > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 09:02:26 -0700, Kevin S. Wilson >
>> wrote:
>> >PS: Stop trolling me. It's a FOLLOW-UP header, not a REPLY-TO header.
>> >Goober doesn't know the difference, but I'm guessing you do.
>>
>> Of course, I understand. I'm trying to speak to him in his language,
>> since he doesn't understand regular English. In the real world, of
>> course, Follow-Up is used when the e-mail is going to just one person,
>> and Reply-To is used when it's going to the whole mailing list.
>
>Both you dipshits need to realize neither one is correct. The
>Reply-to/Follow-up are the headers anyhow. It is "Followup-To"

Well, which is it? Is the header "Reply-to/Follow-up" or is it
"Followup-To." You seem to be confused.
>
>Obviously neither of you can discuss subjects at hand

Is the following direct enough for you?

Why did you crosspost a thread that had nothing to do with BBQ from
ARK into AFB? What exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

> so you decide to
>also fail at attacking my semantics. I suggest you two stop talking out
>of your ignorant asses and look at RFC 1036 section 2.2.3

And I suggest you look at the date on that document. 1987! You need to
find some fresher material.

Also, "RFC" stands for "Request for Consideration," meaning that the
document you cited is merely a PROPOSED standard. That fact kind of
renders your point mute, doesn't it?

>Have a nice day!

I believe that's Barbara's line, CAL. Part of it, anyway.

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr