This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:26:17 -0400
- Cc: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200107010405.VAA23250@racerx.synopsys.com> <orvglceobs.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 11:06:15AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2001, Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM> wrote:
>
> > If you don't want people to cc you, you'll have to tell them so in
> > the body of your message.
>
> Or set the Mail-Followup-To: header, that, AFAIK, a few mail-readers
> recognize and recommend users to honor.
The mutt mailreader, for example, will Do The Right Thing when you reply
to an address which you have told mutt is a mailing list to which you
are subscribed.
The first procmail rule I have is to discard duplicate emails.
Between those two pieces of magic, people can cc: me all they want, and
I'll only see one. (Modulo post-compiler-release days, when the mail
backlog is so long that the duplicate-email cache expires.)
Phil
--
Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in
new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance
which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken.
- anonymous Egyptian scribe, c.1700 BC