On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> > Suzanne, off to send that message to the *right* address
>
> O.k. -- for the record, out of those who have decided to be vocal on the
> subject, we have exactly ONE vote (from the illustrious Ken Koar) to
> KEEP the reply-to header, and roughly 4,672,653,109 votes to get rid of
> it (o.k. well, I never really was very good at addition anyway...) So
> can we PLEASE get rid of the reply-to header? Pretty, pretty please?
<smile> Of course, had I ever had time any of the times that I managed to
accidentally post to the list (which is in and of itself the *problem*,
since if I'd not been in a hurry, I would have noticed), I probably would
have fixed the automatic use of reply to *long* before now. But, since
someone decided to specifically mention it, I've finally gotten around to
it.
While yes, I still would prefer to not have reply-to go to the list, since
that's *not* my brain's default for replying to mail, at least now I'll no
longer be sending utterly bizzare messages to the list unintentionally.
I have definately learned why I hate reply-to being set to the list -
somehow, I didn't expect for a message that was sent to me from majordomo
to have been set to reply to the list! *That* surprised me, I must admit.
Anyway. My vote's to lose reply-to, since it seems to have gone to a vote.
I'm going to go back to being a lurker again, now. :)
Suzanne
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
Student Engineer University of New Hampshire
(603) 862-4626 RCC/IOL, ATM Consortium
Compelling reason will never convince blinding emotion.
-Richard Bach _One_
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
