----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com>
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 1:47:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >
> >> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> >> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> >> Sent: Friday, January 2, 2009 12:45:39 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Configuration change for c...@httpd?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> Nice. How do people actually handle moderation at the ASF then?
> >>> You're *supposed* to be using Reply-All when you want to accept
> >>> a post. Are none of these clients out there ezmlm-compatible?
> >>
> >> Gmail does the same thing in my last set of moderation emails (the
> >> last list I moderated got deleted last month). Reply-all yields
> >> -accept, not found, -allow.
> >>
> >> I don't *recall* that being the behavior before with Gmail, but it
> >> seems that's what it does now... -- justin
> >
> >
> > Shrug, I can try completely removing the To: header, but I'm fairly
> > certain that some MTA's will add one back (and a missing To: header
> > will trigger anti-spam). Other than that, it's pick your poison
> > time, since no universal solution seems at hand.
>
> Make the To: line the bit-bucket? Like no-reply@
nob...@apache.org routes to the bit-bucket, so that would work for the To:
header. That's what I would recommend doing at this point, although I've
just implemented Justin's recommended config and will stop there until
the list comes to a decision.
