On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:04:59AM +0200, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Phill Harvey-Smith <[email protected]> (Do 16 Jul 2009 15:59:29 > CEST): > > I am a member of an email mailing list that's list owner insists on > > setting the reply address back to the original sender rather than the > > more conventional reply to the list. > Your're not talking about *this* list? ;-) -- I'm not sure about what is > more conventional. Both solutions have pros and cons. From my POV it's > heavily dependant on the list audience. The more qualified they (the > subscribers) are (talking about the ability to use a mail client), the > more I'd tend not to modify the Reply-To/From etc, because they are able > to differentiate betweena "(r)reply" and a "(l)ist reply".
The solution to this religious argument for "more qualified" subscribers like what everyone here should be is for the list to leave reply-to alone and leave it up to subscribers to do this: :0 fHw * ^List-Id:.*A user list for the exim MTA | formail -i "Reply-To: [email protected]" which I am sure is easily translatable for those HEATHEN DEVIL WORSHIPPERS who don't worship at the church of procmail. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age PERL: Politely Expressed Racoon Love -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
