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: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Subject: Re: GCC vs GLIBC: why this stance, Drepper ?!?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 01:32:03 +0100 (BST)
- cc: <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I do not want to be cc:ed on this discussion. I clearly set
> Followup-To: headers on my original message. I should have included a
> note in the text as well.
The only RFCs mentioning Followup-To are 850 (obsolete), 1036 (news), 1855
(netiquette) and 2076 (common headers). From RFC 2076:
Used in Usenet News to indicate Followup-To: RFC 1036: 2.2.3,
that future discussions (=follow- not standardized
up) on an article should go to a for use in e-mail.
different set of newsgroups than
the replied-to article. The most
common usage is when an article
is posted to several newsgroups,
and further discussions is to
take place in only one of them.
In e-mail, this header may occur
in a message which is sent to
both e-mail and Usenet News, to
show where follow-up in Usenet
news is wanted. The header does
not say anything about where
follow-up in e-mail is to be
sent.
Note that the value of this
header must always be one or more
newsgroup names, never e-mail
addresses.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk