On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 07:34 AM, Heather Madrone wrote: Administrivia question: I'm getting a lot of duplicate responsese because the Reply-to on the list is set to sender. On moderated lists, this can be a good idea because the approval cycle causes a lag between posting and mail reflection.
Is the Reply-to merely a hint that we should consider taking topics offline, or is there some reason I should be leaving redundant addresses in the headers? More to the point, this list doesn't set Reply-To at all. There's a great deal of discussion at large about whether this is a good idea or not, but by-and-large, the From, To and Cc that come through are the same ones the Sender originally used. At 12:21 PM +1100 11/25/2002, Ken Williams replied: The extra copies are more for your convenience - I appreciate when people send them to me, because one copy goes to my list mailbox and the other goes to my inbox. The one in my inbox will be read faster. I wish there were a standard way to indicate in your own mail headers "I do/don't wish to receive a direct copy of replies to this message." This can be done on usenet pretty effectively, but not really in email lists. Well, on lists like this one that don't munge the Reply-To header, if you designate a Reply-To on the outgoing mail, it should remain intact all the way to the end recipients. -Charles Euonymic Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
