Re: libata & no PCI: dma_[un]map_single undefined

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:16:25 EDT, Jeff Garzik said:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:03:45PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > And rather than configuring your MUA to ignore the header...
> 
> > You're using mutt, mutt can be configured so.
> 
> So, you are seriously proposing that EVERYONE reconfigure their MUA,
> because you are sending out bad headers?
> 
> Don't you think that is an unscalable solution, and an imposition?

Not only is it unscalable, it almost by definition is anti-social.  The only
times I've actually seen one in the wild, it's because some subscriber to a
mailing list wishes to subvert the list's culture in a manner worse than
a Reply-To: header.  I considered adding support for Mail-Followup-To: to
the exmh MUA, but decided against it, because it would basically mean that
every time I got one, I'd have to curse and moan and put the To: and cc: back
the way everybody *else* on the list wanted those to headers to behave. Kind
of hard to motivate myself to write Tk/Tcl code that will just mean a *worse*
user experience for myself...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]