Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:37:13AM +0200, huug wrote: > > On 2002-07-11, Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > P.S. you're setting a Reply-To which on a list usually means you > > > want your replies off list. I don't think that's what you want. > > > > No, pointing Reply-To back to the list is the broken beheaviour. > > If that's broken tell that to the mailing list manager that sets the > Reply-To header to the list if it isn't already present in the email. > Quite a few mailing lists do this. It depends on the list. But in most > cases lists like this one the people posting are already subscribed and > replying to the list rather than the individual is the proper thing to > do. The policy of not overriding the Reply-To by the mailing list > server is to allow people who are not on the list to still get replies > sent to them automagically. So setting a Reply-To pointing back to the > same address as your From field breaks this... esp when it's someone I'm > positive is on the list. :)
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Vox, who thanks the emacs-deities for gnus ability to deal with the broken behaviour of mungled lists. -- Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messenger.... For info on safety in the BDSM lifestyle http://www.the-vox.com Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr.
