So far so good. I only got one copy of your test message. I also sent my own message to just sqlite-users at sqlite.org and it was bounced as expected. -- Darren Duncan
On 2015-03-02 8:14 PM, Mike Owens wrote: > Okay, I blocked the sqlite-users at sqlite.org address in the to address > so if it is sent alone, it will be blocked. > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Mike Owens <mikeowens at gmail.com> wrote: >> Oh okay. I see. I'll look into it. >> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Darren Duncan <darren at darrenduncan.net> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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
