Thorsten Haude wrote: > Yeah, the basic brain-dead-mailer-problem and its reply-to-munging or > group-reply answer. Fortunately, there's Mutt. I use group-reply about > once a year. > I don't know why I didn't get it the first time. > > Dairy, you could set the Reply-To header, this is more widely honored > than Mail-Followup-To. > Ah. I guess they would hit group-reply anyway.
not only that, but Reply-To is already being set by the mailing list :( (yeah i know.....) so the problem is people using group reply in their mailer. the thing i like about 'Mail-Followup-To' (or at least mutt's implementation of it) is that hitting group-reply, reply, or list reply will always use the correct reply address (ie it honors the _sender's_ preferences). in any event, looks like i'm SOL here. i may just switch back to using TO_ for a couple of my procmail recipes which will fix the problem.... i prefer using other headers when possible. w
