----- Original Message ----
> From: Roy T. Fielding <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 8:08:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:28:27 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> >>> certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> >>> will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> >>> time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
> >>
> >> To: d...@httpd would likely be mis-leading...how about re-enabling
> >> -allow/-subscribe lists so that folks who are subscribed don't get the
> >> bounce? Or? -- justin
> >
> > Andre and Roy are the only ones signed up for moderation of c...@httpd.
> > I think the people who want it to go back to being a moderated list
> > should first step up and offer to moderate it before we revert the
> > config.
>
> I am completely uninterested in "fixing" the config just because some
> person reflexively does a reply-all and then doesn't edit their own
> destination addresses. There is nothing to fix here. A bounce is what
> they are supposed to receive to keep the discussion on dev.
>
As I mentioned on infra@ the editor config for c...@httpd is currently a hack.
Shall I restore it to the original, supported config?
