Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

It turns out the FCC has already covered this in their rulemaking for 9-8-8. “We decline to adopt a proposal to require multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) to

Re: [VoiceOps] Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Did you actually read the discussion that I linked to? https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2014-August/077673.html To quote from it: > > [...] Outlook sends Reply All to the original sender and anyone > > else that was Cc'd, but not the list. > > > > Is there a fix? Which other

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Well, let’s give it a whirl and see what happens. I’ll let everyone know when the change has been made. Thanks, David From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 8:32 AM To: voiceops@voiceops.org Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mailman

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Odd recommendation. I've never been on a list with this behavior. (Or more precisely, not since the 90s when bandwidth mattered and everyone was trying to conserve it and reduce "fluff.) Since I'm on two other busy Mailman lists that have the reply-to-list behavior, I can say I've seen it work

Re: [VoiceOps] [EXTERNAL] Re: Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Hi, I’m not aware of any recent changes to the list config, but I’ll check. The current “reply-to” behavior is the one generally recommended by the Mailman docs, which warn of weird email client behavior if you mess around with it. I’m not beyond messing around with it, just don’t want to make

Re: [VoiceOps] Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

"Reply-To in different ways" ? It means one thing... am I missing a mail client that does not follow this ? > On Jul 20, 2022, at 06:24, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps > wrote: > > "Reply-To" in different ways -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway

Re: [VoiceOps] [External] [External] Re: [External] Re: [External] Re: 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

> On Jul 19, 2022, at 6:30 PM, Mary Lou Carey via VoiceOps > wrote: > > I think you need to think of it in terms of it being like 911. "Do I want to > chance getting sued and possibly put out of business because of that one > person who killed themselves after they tried dialing 988 and

Re: [VoiceOps] 9-8-8 dialing when an outside line access code (9) is being used

I have never heard of this. What LATA are you in? Can you give an example NPA where you know this to be the case? As a consumer, if I were subscribed to ILEC without bundled long-distance, I would find such an arrangement both confusing and infuriating. Especially with near-universal

Re: [VoiceOps] Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

Since it appears that various mail clients deal with the existence of "Reply-To" in different ways, it's honestly a bit frustrating that this isn't configurable per-subscriber within Mailman, instead of implemented strictly as a list-wide setting. Otherwise I could just log into my member

Re: [VoiceOps] Mailman 'Reply-To' munging (was: Re: 9-8-8 dialing [...])

What mail client are you using? Prior to Monday afternoon, "Sender" was voiceops-bounces@ (as it still is), "From" was the actual sender, "To" was (as you'd expect) voiceops@, and "Reply-To" was not set (unless perhaps the sender set it in their mail client? not sure if that was getting