In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:17:23 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do.
*sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :)
Hey, if we actually *READ*
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
complaints here!
Because the configuration of the current mailing list is limited by
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:48:08 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
complaints
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 11:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw, ahm, with all this discussion about headers like M-F-T, why aren't we
using the already standard List-* headers? I would solve a lot of the
complaints here!
Because the configuration of the current
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote:
Ummm, yahoo does lists for free provides a web archive, etc. Granted,
there'd be less control ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more
control.
I, personally, would consider that a step in the wrong direction. :)
When I say we are
In a message dated: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:31:39 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, at 12:10pm, Tom Buskey wrote:
Ummm, yahoo does lists for free provides a web archive, etc. Granted,
there'd be less control ads inserted. Well, maybe there'd be more
control.
I, personally,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Derek D. Martin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
mwl's Reply-To suggestion is a good one.
No, it isn't. The problem with setting reply-to is that it is done so
infrequently that a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Dana S. Tellier hath spake thusly:
I have a better idea... how about (this has definitely been
mentioned before) people just take a moment to note who they're
replying to? Making a mistake and replying to all when you
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:40:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any message sent to the list address is not a private reply.
I suspect you really mean that people who blindly hit Reply will send to
the wrong address. You're right, they will. But that's not the
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 1:56pm, Bob Bell wrote:
IMHO, Mail-Followup-To is a cleaner solution.
Oh, I agree that a header specifically for this reason is a much better
solution. However, until such time as Mail-Followup-To becomes an effective
solution, I plan on including a Reply-To header as
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:57:00 EDT
mike ledoux said:
M-F-T would be really nice, except that Mutt is the only MUA that uses it.
Last I checked, the RFC it was proposed in had expired.
Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do. I'm not
as familiar with that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use. Thus when
replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject but not the addresses so I
get a nice clean header.
- --
Jerry
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 04:54:27PM -0400, Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use.
Thus when replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject
but not the addresses so I get a nice clean header.
Which, incidently,
In a message dated: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:54:27 EDT
Jerry Feldman said:
I use exmh at home, and I have set up templates for the lists I use. Thus when
replying to a listserv, the template preserves the Subject but not the
addresses so I get a nice clean header.
So are you doing something like:
You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains
the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to
go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list
unless you specify otherwise. Why is that? Why do I need to reconfigure
my client
On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 09:10 PM, Thomas M. Albright wrote:
You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains
the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to
go to the list. Every other list sets the replies to go to the list
unless you
Hmmm The header-munging Vs. Non-header-munging debate. Is it
Thursday already? ;-)
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 21:10, Thomas M. Albright wrote:
You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains
the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to
go
If you take a look through the archives, about a year ago (might be longer
now I suppose) several people on the list felt that it should be changed.
There was a 'vote' held and it was decided to change to the behavior we
have now. The other side of it was that those of who didn't agree with
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 9:46pm, Rich Payne wrote:
The other side of it was that those of who didn't agree with the change
reserved the right to complain about it for the rest of eternity.
I've said this before, but repetition is the very soul of the 'net.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Erik Price wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 09:10 PM, Thomas M. Albright wrote:
You know, with all the stuff you guys are talking about, this remains
the only list I'm on where I have to reply-to-all if I want my reply to
go to the list. Every other list sets
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, at 4:32pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone explain exactly what M-F-T is *supposed* to do.
*sigh* Did this forum become write-only when I wasn't looking? :)
http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html
In a public forum like this one, there are at least two types of
Folks, FYI: my GNHLUG dues are paid in full
and my subscription to this GNHLUG list is
therefore fully active and working perfectly.
That means that when somebody posts a message
to this list, I'll get a copy. That also means
that if that person CC's me directly when they
post that message, I
The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail
client will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to
not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to
to the list address...
Ah! Good advice. Done.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, at 2:26pm, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
That also means that if that person CC's me directly when they post that
message, I will get a second copy.
Yah. I call that List Header Cancer, because the Cc header in a
thread grows larger and larger as everyone who has ever
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 h:01, you wrote:
The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail
client will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to
not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to
to the list address...
Ah! Good advice. Done.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:49:27PM -0400, mike ledoux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The way your headers are coming through now, a well-behaved mail client
will suggest replying directly to you. If you prefer to not get any
'private' replies, you could always set your reply-to to the list
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, at 11:21pm, Bob Bell wrote:
If you prefer to not get any 'private' replies, you could always set your
reply-to to the list address...
The problem here is that attempts at private replies will grab the list
address [0].
Any message sent to the list address is not a
27 matches
Mail list logo
