=== on 7 Jul 2015, 15:08:46 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~tamas.vajk], I flipped this around from the original proposition; the real problem is that you subscribed with an anonymous delegate. Hopefully that's not too much harder in the implementation...

=== on 8 Jul 2015, 09:11:24 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] We won't be able to implement the rule this way. Finding  subscription and unsubscription pairs won't be easy.


On the other hand, whenever you try to unsubscribe with an anonymous delegate that is an issue. So recognizing this is easy. I would go this way. (I've changed the location of the issue, but both the message and the title would need modification)

=== on 8 Jul 2015, 13:56:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
updated. See what you think [~tamas.vajk]

=== on 20 Jul 2015, 11:44:56 Tamas Vajk wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] Looks good.

