sqLite in Memory

[Igor de Oliveira Couto]

On 16/06/2012, at 1:48 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> If the message got here, by definition it's not a "wrong" address.
> 
> Apparently both addresses wind up here so both are correct.

I believe the old address is kept because of users that have to /choose to continue to use it, as pointed out previously. That doesn't mean that it's 'correct', or even that it's as 'correct' as the new one. 

On 16/06/2012, at 1:42 PM, Jerry Jensen wrote:

> Igor, get over it.

Go tell it to the folks still using outdated addresses - they seem to need help to 'get over it'.

On 16/06/2012, at 1:40 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:

> You may have missed the message from one person who reads and replies from the Nabble archives.

Indeed, I did. To be honest, I had never heard of 'Nabble'.

On 16/06/2012, at 1:37 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:

> As has been pointed out,
> nabble uses the old addressing form, so it's not always in the user's
> control. And there are other issues...

Thanks, Jacqueline & Mark, for the explanation.

Mark, I think I'll follow your advice, add one more line to my mail filters, and just forget about proper cataloguing and threading for this list. It sounds like it's easier, and probably the only sane way to go.

I guess until RunRev finally 'turns the switch off' on the old addresses, someone will always find a way to use them.

--
Igor Couto
Sydney, Australia