Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-13 Thread Mike Leone
Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 02:00: Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-12 23:57:48 -0500]: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:23PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: If you really want people to reply on-list your should add a Reply-To header that contains

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-13 Thread Mike Leone
Duncan Findlay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 00:40: Fair enough, I guess. On the Debian lists, Mail-Followup-To is the header everyone lives by. (Probably because we all use mutt) Not everyone. :-) When I read my email from work, I do it via Squirrelmail, a web client. At

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-13 Thread Matt Kettler
I'd say that's perfectly reasonable.. Unfortunately some of mailing lists flat-out munge any existing reply-to's.. which is the bad part everyone objects to. ie: if I explicitly set a reply-to of myself because I wanted private replies, and the list over-wrote that, I'd be a bit bent outa

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-13 Thread Mike Leone
Matt Kettler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) had this to say on 12/13/02 at 15:36: I'd say that's perfectly reasonable.. Unfortunately some of mailing lists flat-out munge any existing reply-to's.. which is the bad part everyone objects to. ie: if I explicitly set a reply-to of myself because I

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-13 Thread Adrian Ho
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 06:30:08PM +0100, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: Exactly, which is why I, on my own lists, always set a reply-to to the list if there's no reply-to set already; meaning that unless the sender says otherwise the reply goes to the list, just as he wants it to. Hint: Broken

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-12 Thread Matt Kettler
(I'm manually removing you from the reply path and replying only to list, per your stated preference, even though your email headers are drafted in a manner which does not request such handling) This is also getting WAY OT.. but does pertain to email still :) Note that I didn't say I'm in the

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-12 Thread Duncan Findlay
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:23PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: This is also getting WAY OT.. but does pertain to email still :) Multiple copies of the same message are kinda like spam :-) If you really want people to reply on-list your should add a Reply-To header that contains [EMAIL

Re: [SAtalk] OT: Reply-To headers (was: No tag?)

2002-12-12 Thread Bob Proulx
Duncan Findlay [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-12-12 23:57:48 -0500]: On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:23PM -0500, Matt Kettler wrote: If you really want people to reply on-list your should add a Reply-To header that contains [EMAIL PROTECTED] to your outbound messages. Note this is not Reply-To