22 Jun
2012
22 Jun
'12
8:13 p.m.
On 22 June 2012 15:40, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
In a previous post, I specifically excluded "convenience headers" from being considered as "violating" this "rule". They are not at issue here.
You keep asserting this, but I haven't seen you explain *what* makes the convenience headers so special that they do not violate your rule. -- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404