David Rogers schrieb: > * Michael Welsh Duggan <m...@md5i.com> [2010-08-30 18:04]: > >Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes: > >> Is there a reason that the reply-to header is not set for the mailing > >> list? > > > >Yes, there is a reason. > > > >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > >http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt > > The logic at those links is impeccable but irrelevant.
Well, it's not. There *may* be reasons replying just to the OP (such as private statements), as well as there *may* be reasons to reply both, the list and the OP (what whould be reply-to-all; the poster does not need to read the list he was posting (as ist is often so in the linux-kernel lists), but the public might be interested in the answer). Normally you just want reply-to- list. That are mail standards since 20+ years, if a MUA doesn't get it right, it's not the fault of the list. ;) -- MfG Jan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
