On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 07:20:20AM -0700, Eugenio Diaz wrote:
> If a spammer su*scribes to the list with a generic email (a one time use like
> hotmail, yahoo, etc) and send a controversial message like "Microsoft pays
> Torvalds under the table" with the Reply-To set to his address collecting
> a
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > This does not makes sense **at all**. List are suposed to be public
> bulletin
> > boards, not private chat rooms!
> >
> > In any event, the writer of that paper (if you can call it that) could not
> give
> > a sensible reason for not overrinding (or munging
So sprach David Walluck am Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:36:40AM -0400:
> off-topic. People setting their reply-to's to themselves only make it
> hard on me, who is trying to reply to the list in the first place,
Well, that's only the setup of the software Mandrake uses. In most
(all?) other list so
So sprach Xavier Bertou am Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:55:10PM +:
> Note that there is no answer to this precise point in
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
That's right, there's no TECHNICAL answer. But, I for one, reply to
lists about 95% of the time (and thus only 5% p
>
> This does not makes sense **at all**. List are suposed to be public bulletin
> boards, not private chat rooms!
>
> In any event, the writer of that paper (if you can call it that) could not give
> a sensible reason for not overrinding (or munging as he call it) the Reply-To
> header; but I w
So sprach Randy Kramer am Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 10:54:18AM -0400:
> Thanks for sending this -- don't know if you wanted feedback or not, but
Actually not :) Anyhow... *G*
> Expanding my set of notes, from Netscape Navigator 3.04, if I press:
>
> - Re:Mail a reply is generated to you, only
> - R
Eugenio Diaz wrote:
> If you reply to the author and the list, then the author is going to get the
> message twice; one from you and one from the list - if he/she is su*scribed;
> which of course is necesary by definition.
Eugenio,
Thanks for the response!
Yes, good point, but I see it as sort
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> This does not makes sense **at all**. List are suposed to be public bulletin
> boards, not private chat rooms!
There is one point which is correct is the above web page, it's:
> FROM http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html:
> Can't
Alexander,
Thanks for sending this -- don't know if you wanted feedback or not, but
you're right, the reply to for this note is to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to
the list.
Expanding my set of notes, from Netscape Navigator 3.04, if I press:
- Re:Mail a reply is generated to you, only
- Re:All a repl
Christian Bricart wrote:
>>Nope, it's not. In your mail, Reply-To: was set correctly, ie. to the list.
>>
>
> And that's _not_ correct..
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Christian
>
>
And there are probably equally as many that say this is a good thing,
including mys
--- Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So sprach Christian Bricart am Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:01:19PM +0200:
> > And that's _not_ correct..
> >
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Yawn.
>
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
;-) he, he.
=
--- Christian Bricart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > So sprach Eugenio Diaz am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:53:59AM -0700:
> > > Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
> >
> > Nope, it's not. In your mail, Rep
--- Digital Wokan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reply-to did come through set to ASkwar. Would it be more proper to
> have the list override any user-supplied reply-to's?
>
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >
> > So sprach Eaon am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:39:54PM -0600:
> > > But some emails still g
--- Randy Kramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I can imagine:
>
> Reply to author (originator)
> Reply to list
> Reply to author and list
> Reply to ccs
>
> And I guess I could add all the other combinations -- too many buttons.
> Ok, maybe five buttons instead, something like:
>
> Reply
--- Eaon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That is your prob, not cooker's :). For long now, cooker has had the
> > right replyto and any sane (not the scanner interface, the adjective)
> > client follows it. Did that siggy say yahoo?
> >
>
> Yes and no. Yes, the reply-to's are for the most part
--- Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2001 11:53:59 -0700, Eugenio Diaz wrote:
> > Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
> >
> > I think is bad that every time you reply to a maillist post, you have to
> double
> > check that the reply-to address is cook
So sprach Christian Bricart am Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:01:19PM +0200:
> And that's _not_ correct..
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Yawn.
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> So sprach Eugenio Diaz am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:53:59AM -0700:
> > Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
>
> Nope, it's not. In your mail, Reply-To: was set correctly, ie. to the list.
And that's _not
The reply-to did come through set to ASkwar. Would it be more proper to
have the list override any user-supplied reply-to's?
Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
> So sprach Eaon am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:39:54PM -0600:
> > But some emails still get through (OS, who sends from a compuserve account,
> > st
So sprach Eaon am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:39:54PM -0600:
> But some emails still get through (OS, who sends from a compuserve account,
> sticks out in my mind) that for some reason don't get reply-to set properly.
I suppose, that is, because OS sends his mails with a Reply-To: already
set. Let's
So sprach Eugenio Diaz am Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 11:53:59AM -0700:
> Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
Nope, it's not. In your mail, Reply-To: was set correctly, ie. to the list.
> I think is bad that every time you reply to a maillist post, you have to double
> chec
Blue Lizard wrote:
> That is your prob, not cooker's :). For long now, cooker has had the
> right replyto and any sane (not the scanner interface, the adjective)
> client follows it. Did that siggy say yahoo?
I don't know. I have similar problems and I'm using pine, well Mozilla
now in case
Blue Lizard wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2001 11:53:59 -0700, Eugenio Diaz wrote:
> > I remember raising this issue over a year ago, and I don't know what was the
> > conclusion, but some one stated something about not being able to do it because
> > of mail loops. I don't know, but surely there must be a
> That is your prob, not cooker's :). For long now, cooker has had the
> right replyto and any sane (not the scanner interface, the adjective)
> client follows it. Did that siggy say yahoo?
>
Yes and no. Yes, the reply-to's are for the most part set correctly. Even
works in Outlook (not sure
On 09 Jul 2001 11:53:59 -0700, Eugenio Diaz wrote:
> Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
>
> I think is bad that every time you reply to a maillist post, you have to double
> check that the reply-to address is cooker and not the address of the poster.
> Several times a
Is cooker again leaving the reply-to field untouched in emails?
I think is bad that every time you reply to a maillist post, you have to double
check that the reply-to address is cooker and not the address of the poster.
Several times already I have posted comments to some of the posts, and they
26 matches
Mail list logo
