Return-Path: 
 <new-httpd-return-5854-apmail-new-httpd-archive=apache.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org
Received: (qmail 41432 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jun 2000 17:57:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
list-help: <mailto:new-httpd-help@apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:new-httpd-unsubscribe@apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:new-httpd@apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org
Received: (qmail 41301 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 17:57:11 -0000
Message-ID: <045c01bfe2bd$2003cec0$c1e01b09@raleigh.ibm.com>
From: "Bill Stoddard" <stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006300903110.7770-100000@koj.rkbloom.net>
Subject: Re: filter design
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 14:00:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

> It is amazing the divergent views of history.  :-)
> 
> I came to the conclusion of my view of a veto based on comments from other
> posters.  One of those comments, was Roy saying:
> 
> "I would veto it myself if I had time to back it up with a fully
> implemented alternative."
> 

It's shaky logic intuiting the meaning of 'veto' from this one sentence :-)

Bill