Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:889 news.groups:24812 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!emory!samsung!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!daemon From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,news.groups Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: REPLACE comp.unix.internals Message-ID: <1990Oct30.011325.16035@athena.mit.edu> Date: 30 Oct 90 01:13:25 GMT References: Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit) Organization: Thermal Technologies, Inc. Lines: 45 [I hope I'm not being impossibly gauche in following up to a CFV.] In article laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes: >[This is a reposting, because there were complaints that the Reply-to > header was not correctly set.] > Votes both for and against this proposal may be mailed to > samsung!slum!votes, [decwrl!]decvax!slum!votes, or > votes@slum.mv.com. I don't know what "correctly set" means, but as received here has no Reply-To: line, neither laird@chinet.chi.il.us, samsung!slum!votes, decvax!slum!votes, nor votes@slum.mv.com. > The Subject: line ONLY will contain the vote. To retain the > current comp.unix.internals, put 'comp.unix.internals' or > 'internals' on the Subject: line. Maybe this is the way such votes are always run, but doesn't this bias the results subtly in favor of comp.unix.internals? Anyone who doesn't read the directions carefully, and replies with a vote in the message body while retaining the automatically- generated Re: header, has just voted for internals. (Actually, the lack of a proper Reply-To: line helps here, since it forces manual intervention.) Finally, how is it that the CFV article has now been posted three times and it still has these weird formatting problems? Most of the last lines just before the "section headings" are truncated: > rely on the accuracy of the information posted in this group for > their work. Technical accuracy is better than a timely >VOTING: Eliot's second post (referred to in ) allegedly was to fix the "particularly bizarre" formatting problems, yet they (at least some of them; I never saw the first post) were in that copy, too. Am I the only one having this problem? Is my site not canceling or superseding articles properly? Steve Summit scs@adam.mit.edu