Volkhart Baumgaertner <kyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
spake thusly:
>
> on 13 Apr 2000 13:27:29 +1000, you wrote:
You really should have your mailer attribute messages by name, as
threads on this list tend to get long (don't we all know!).
> >This little flood is also an example of why munging "Reply-To:" on a
> >mailing list is a Bad Thing.
> >
> >I believe Reply-To: should be left however the sender set it (it would
> >stop all the accidental replies to the list, also).
>
> I beg to disagree. This would oblige all subscribers to manually change the
> address when sending a reply to a message in the list to the list (IMHO the
> majority of replies). Extremely inconvenient - much more so than filtering
> or manually deleting the occasional automated replies like in the present
> case.
Good mailers have two distinct reply commands:
"reply to sender"
"reply to all recipients"
That allows you to make the *choice* where you want to send it,
without having to cut-and-paste *anything*.
See here for a discussion of the pros-and-cons of reply-to: munging:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
For those who are interested, I can share a "procmail" filter rule
which un-does the reply-to: munging on the list traffic, which allows
you to reply to sender with having to cut 'n' paste.
(Personally it doesn't overly concern me which way a particular list
is configured, because I use my mail filters to mung the incoming mail
to suit my preferences).
cjb
--
------------------ Linux hackers do it in protected mode -------------------
| Christopher Biggs - Software Engineer, Stallion Technologies, Australia |
| chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - CEO, J.Random Deadguy Institute for Weird Studies |
------- Mathematics and alcohol don't mix --- Never drink and derive -------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|