On 1 Mar 2004 at 13:14, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > On Monday, March 1, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > > > The only thing that may help to avoid such dilemmas in the future is > > to include a reply to address in list messages. I think this has > > been asked for many times (and all other email lists I use have > > this). So if you are able to do this, that would help us. > > > > Thanks for looking into this. > > But this, IMO, would be worse. If the Reply-to were set to the list, > the whitelist "request" would have been sent *to the list*, for > *every* post. What's more, all of those replies would get archived > and uselessly clog up the shsu.edu server.
Well, it depends on what the whitelisting software uses. If it uses REPLY-TO headers, then if you whitelisted the Finale list address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), all messages would get through. If, on the other hand, the whitelist program is unable to handle anything but the FROM address, this would not have helped. But it wouldn't have harmed anything either. The point is: the whitelisting software either can handle selection on some header other than FROM or it can't. If it can't, it's completely unsuited for use by anyone who subscribes to email lists. Any properly designed whitelisting program should be able to select on any header address. In the present case, a proper REPLY-TO header would either have fixed the problem or it would have had no effect whatsoever on the situation. I really don't see that there's any justification whatsoever for not having the REPLY-TO header set to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I'm not the list owner. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
