Dave J. wrote:
> In MsgID<slrnd8h2ri.sdb.chris@ccserver.keris.net> within uk.net, 'Chris
> Croughton' wrote:
>
> <Snip discussion of Supersede[1] header>
>
>>Even in its heyday they were more of a "wish" than a command for several
>>of those reasons, now they are all but useless and certainly can't be
>>relied on to work.
Thanks for letting me know. I stopped relying on "supersede" once people
replied to the older posts. I then realised that I potentially caused a
mess and humiliated myself, if anything.
> The only exception is the cancel message where the server you're using
> honours them. If it will cancel it, then providing you're quick enough to
> get there before the original has been propagated it will do the trick.
I thought about the time gap that exists. Since I sometimes only eradicated
a typo, a second message followed only seconds afterwards.
> Only snag there being that (according to another source) some will only
> cancel locally, but will actually forward both the message and the cancel.
>
> [1] I *still* want to spell it as 'supercede' it just doesn't feel right
> with the second S.
I used to write it with a 'C' until the spellchecker insisted on an 'S'.
Maybe it's one of these words that look mistaken, like "occasion" or "heir"
for instance, or maybe it's just because of the word "cede".
Roy
|
|
