From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FOgHw-0007m6-2v
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:25:04 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FOgHu-0007k0-4D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:25:03 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOgHt-0007jr-Bu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:25:01 -0500
Received: from [66.249.92.207] (helo=uproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FOgJu-0003Rr-1f
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:27:06 -0500
Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s2so106788uge
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e8ca35370603291124v325d81e1y7860e4d918524f82@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:24:59 +0200
From: "Pascal Terjan" <pterjan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add gcc 4.0 support
In-Reply-To: <E5E88543-C778-4819-B014-7E5D78127AED@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060215122501.GA29709@networkno.de>
	<20060328140937.GB31939@networkno.de>
	<F4CBCED7-5B22-4C5F-AC94-7FBCAACC1220@mac.com>
	<20060329095947.GE31939@networkno.de>
	<E5E88543-C778-4819-B014-7E5D78127AED@mac.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 3/29/06, John Davidorff Pell <jpell.lists@mac.com> wrote:
> P.S. Why does the list set the reply-to header, isn't that supposed
> to be a Bad Thing=99?

Only according to some people :)
I hate when I reply to a list and the message goes to the guy and not
to the list... (If someone enforces Reply-To in his mail I think
however that it should remain).