So in that case, still have the SQLite mail server reject messages to the old list rather than forwarding them, and let the problematic MUAs deal with it. The key thing is that by not forwarding but rejecting, the mail server isn't sending out 2 copies of messages directly, and the rejecting is reminding people to pay attention until the issue as a consequence goes away. Thus any explicit Reply-To headers can be left unmunged by the list server. -- Darren Duncan
On 2015-03-02 7:10 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > The problem is that this is the very bone of contention in the reply-to > religious war. Is it not? I may be wrong, but I thought this is the very > setting that people get so defensive about changing. As we have it now, > people have a suitable default pointing back to the (correct) list but also > the freedom to change the reply-to header should they want to. If we strip > the reply-to header in order to correct for the problematic MUA's, then the > latter freedom is lost. And if I remember correctly, some people get very > angry about this. > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Darren Duncan <darren at darrenduncan.net> > wrote: > >> On 2015-03-02 6:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:27 PM, R.Smith <rsmith at rsweb.co.za> wrote: >>> >>>> Ah, thank you, all makes sense now. If you change the first option to YES >>>> then nobody else's quirky reply-to headers will get into the list, and >>>> the >>>> second option remains as is (it should be setting the standard >>>> @mailinglists reply-to field) - this should solve the duplication issue, >>>> but if it is disagreeable to anyone, more consideration is needed. >>>> >>> >>> I almost don't want to even speak of this for fear that this issue will >>> raise it's ugly head again. Per the Mailmain documentation ( >>> http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html): >>> >>> Beware! Reply-To: munging is considered a religious issue and the policies >>> >>>> you set here can ignite some of the most heated off-topic flame wars on >>>> your mailing lists. We'll try to stay as agnostic as possible, but our >>>> biases may still peak through. >>>> >>>> >>> That's as much as I'll say about that. >>> >> >> Well it doesn't have to be complete munging, rather just enough munging to >> remove references to the old mailing list name. -- Darren Duncan
