On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Jules Richardson wrote:
Thanks to both of you. I came back to cctalk after not checking it for a few
days, and wondered what the %$#^ was going on, with every message showing
with cctalk as the "from" field.
I'm another one who dislikes the new system. It would be much better if
the Reply-To field did *not* contain the sender's email address because
when I reply to a message, I use the Reply-To field (of course) and have
to delete the extra line because I want to reply to the list and *not*
privately to the sender. So either the sender's address should be in the
From field or in a new header field, e.g. List-Original-Sender or
something like that.
For now I have set up a procmail rule to strip the "via cctalk" from the
From field because this is ugly and redundant.
Christian
