Re: Configuring automake says autoconf 2.58 or higher needed. Have au toconf 2.59 installed. What is/goes wrong?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 07:01 -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 13:15 +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >
> >> PS: I know this is not the first time, but I simply do not
> >>     understand why you respond to bug reports without Cc: the
> >>     reporter.
> > I normally respond CC:-ing the reporter on auto*.gnu.org lists, because
> > they tend to be unreliable. Not have done so in this case was just an
> > oversight.
> 
> otoh, when I do that, I usually get 2-3 complaints from people stating 
> that I shouldn't (ymmv).

Then there are these gray/white-listing wanna-be spam filters posters
use :)

My normal strategy in replying to lists is to CC:-ing the original
senders on open lists (such as some *.gnu.org lists), while I am list-
replying only on most closed lists.

As open lists are an dying species nowadays, and are gradually being
converted into spam breeding fields, I am getting used to miss CC:-ing
the original sender ... ;)

Ralf