No, I don't want to convert you to my opinion of Reply-To handling :-) I think Mailmans attitude is correct, everyone should be able to implement his own idea ...
Only I found it not flexible enough. Our Problem: We have an announcement list for campus network admnistrators and an associated discussion list (for *interested* network administrators). Usually, answers are directed to the discussion list and everyone is happy. But sometimes, there are announcements like "We need 20 people who also buy this to get a good price. If you would like to buy, answer me." The answers obviously shouldn't go to the list. Network adminstrators aren't any better at hand editing To: fields than anybody else. If you opt for not stripping the original Reply-To: header, you will get the answers to the sender *and* the list, also not what you want. My idea would be to restructure the options in the following way: DEFAULT_REPLY_GOES_TO_LIST: # 0 - Reply-To: no address # 1 - Reply-To: back to the list # 2 - Reply-To: to an explicit value (reply_to_address) # 3 - Reply-To: to sender of mail DEFAULT_FIRST_STRIP_REPLY_TO # 0 - merge # 1 - override # 2 - respect For our case, I'd use values of "0" and "2". I hope the meaning of "respect", "override" and "merge" is clear ... Any ideas? Jost -- | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please help stamp out spam! | | Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center | | Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. | | Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
pgprELM5GVaua.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org Security Policy: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=show&file=faq01.027.htp
