Rance Hall schreef:
> There is no indication of this behavior on any of the welcome pages
> and no suggestion that this list behaves differently than any others.
Most technical mailing lists do it the right way. They might insert a
Mail-Followup-To: header field (but only if there isn't one alrea
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 05:38:32PM +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
> Rance Hall schreef:
>
> > There is no indication of this behavior on any of the welcome pages
> > and no suggestion that this list behaves differently than any others.
>
> Most technical mailing lists do it the right way. They might inser
On Mon, 2006-01-05 at 17:06 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> In other words, I don't think blaming choice of mail client or mail user
> agent helps anything, especially since in many cases work conditions may
> dictate one's choice of client or MUA.
I don't blame either. I blame the list manager, the s
Chad Perrin schreef:
> I don't think blaming choice of mail client or mail
> user agent helps anything
Then blame the people that made or approved the client. But blaming
never gets you much further.
There exist several tools, like procmail, to adjust the message to the
limits of your mailer; ei
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:24:12PM -0400, Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-05 at 17:06 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > In other words, I don't think blaming choice of mail client or mail user
> > agent helps anything, especially since in many cases work conditions may
> > dictate one's cho
> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Perrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:37 AM
> To: Mr. Shawn H. Corey
> Cc: Chad Perrin; beginners@perl.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] I give up with the reply-to business already
>
> Please refrain from sen
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Ryan Frantz wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chad Perrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Please refrain from sending me two copies of an email. If it goes to
> > the list, I'll get it. There's no need to include my private email
> > address if you're also se
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 08:28:06AM -0400, Ryan Frantz wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chad Perrin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:37 AM
> > To: Mr. Shawn H. Corey
> > Cc: Chad Perrin; beginners@perl.org
> > Sub
> "Russ" == Russ Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russ> That means if you want to reply to just the list, you have to make a
Russ> manual effort to delete everyone else's address.
*But* you can't do that. Suppose I'm sending to perl-beginners, and also
cc'ing a few of my expert friends who
(Randal L. Schwartz) schreef:
> If you want to do duplicate rejection, please note that every message
> contains a message-id that is unique per message. I reject
> duplicates via procmail. You can do the same.
I prefer to filter out the author's email address from my follow-up, if
the message a
On 5/2/06, Dr.Ruud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Randal L. Schwartz) schreef:
> If you want to do duplicate rejection, please note that every message
> contains a message-id that is unique per message. I reject
> duplicates via procmail. You can do the same.
I prefer to filter out the author's
Omega -1911:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> I prefer to filter out the author's email address from my follow-up,
>> if the message arrived via a list.
>> Unless the specific author requested otherwise (by any means,
>> probably including Mail-*-To headers), or the list doesn't work
>> reliably.
>> [cut that Omega
Intrah onat Diria .. 02 May 2006 12:30:05 -0700
, ** wrote "Noalim y":
> That's another objection I had in reading the replies to this thread: the
> *list* never sends a message. *People* send messages. So the "From" and
> "reply-to" should never be an mechanical list resending mecha
- Forwarded message from The Answering Machine
-
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Tue, 02 May 2006 15:21:57 -0700
From: The Answering Machine
Subject: Re: [OT] I give up with the reply-to business already
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you
14 matches
Mail list logo
