Re: Please reconfigure majordomo to not set Reply-To (was: Failedto clean virus file Emanuel.exe)
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Lance Paine wrote: I'm in agreement, there is a reason that most mailers have a Reply-All or Reply-Group function after all. Don't munge Reply-To! Well, if it's *replacing* Reply-to: on incoming mail, that's definitely broken. However it is perfectly reasonable for a list reflector to *add* this header, and I appreciate the service. Besides, I'm getting a nice list of virus-scanner companies that don't know how to write proper autoresponders. :-/ -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make a good day. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List[EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please reconfigure majordomo to not set Reply-To (was: Failedto clean virus file Emanuel.exe)
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 05:00:01 -0700, Caliban Tiresias Darklock [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ctd) writes: ctd On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 13:33:18 +0200, Michael Ströder ctd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the mailing list processor is configured to set the Reply-To address to the list address. IMHO this should be changed to reduce such problems with automatic replies (vacation e-mails, virus-scans etc.). ctd But that would make *regular* replies a pain in the ass for list ctd members. What we do is send the notice to the envelope sender, which typically is set to the list owner. (Sorry list owner.) At least that way it doesn't flood the entire list time and time again -- Amos __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List[EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
