[lug] Re: More on Reply-To

[Sean Reifschneider]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0600, Peter Hutnick wrote:
>No, I don't.  "The list" did not write the message.

Then you understand how some of us feel about not having reply-to-list...
It is, unfortunately, one of those things that some people like it one way,
and some the other.

>It is only your perception that "we" "can't conceive that people would like 
>things any other way."  It is perfectly obvious that many people prefer 

Sorry, I mis-read the text I was replying to.  The way I read it sounded
way too much like Will*'s "But how can I tell beforehand that the list
admin is a moron" response.

>BTW, do you have anything to say about the loss of original reply-to headers?

I believe your argument for not touching them was if the user was replying
from a place they didn't want to get e-mail.  Reply-to munging would
promote the reply going to the list, which presumably they can read.

In the case of Mailman, the previous Reply-To is preserved as "X-Reply-To".
I *THOUGHT* that if you specified an explicit reply-to it would override
the reply-to-list, but it doesn't seem to.  Which is too bad really,
because that is a nice way to say "Hey, let's take it off list."

Does anyone know historically what most mailing lists have been set to?  It
seems to me like the non-reply-to-list thing is fairly recent and that most
of the lists I've been on have been reply-to-list...  I might just be
mis-remembering though...

Sean
-- 
 An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be
 devoured.  -- Konrad Adenauer
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python