Hi Amlan,
Thank you for the feedback, I was expecting some at least (would have felt
rather disheartened if none arrived :).
The decision to munge the Reply-to header was a deliberate one -- a simple
continuation of list policy from the old list at egroups.com. I believe
that if you look into the headers of old posts from egroups.com you will
notice the truth of my statement. (I have included one below). I am
familiar with the document you have referred to. In fact, I spent quite
some time deliberating whether to have a Reply-To header or not. I decided
to stick to the existing policy as no one has objected to/raised this point
earlier, also the fact that linux-india.org (the all-India LUG, and
umbrella for all the city/local LUGs) uses a Reply-To header on its list
and the fact that none of its subscribers have ever objected to the header
munging issue. (This is not to say that just because no one is objecting,
it means that munging Reply-To header is the right thing to do).
I have noted your suggestion. If the other members too express facing
similar difficulties (and a lack of choice) in replying to posts, I will
make the necessary changes to the config.
regards,
--Indra.
Headers from an earlier post from the list on Egroups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Received: from ml.egroups.com (ml.egroups.com [207.138.41.146])
by cal.vsnl.net.in (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA25725
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:47:20 +0530 (IST)
Received: from [10.1.1.22] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jun 1999
10:18:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailing-List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-URL: http://www.egroups.com/list/ilug-cal/
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 819 invoked by uid 7770); 17 Jun 1999 09:18:40 -0000
Received: from queen.cwc.nus.edu.sg (137.132.163.140)
by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 1999 09:18:40 -0000
Received: from catbert.cwc.nus.edu.sg.cwc.nus.edu.sg ([137.132.163.120])
by queen.cwc.nus.edu.sg (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA27313
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:25:18 +0730 (SST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 17:25:18 +0730 (SST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Amlan Saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.93.990617142456.16166A-100000@giascla>
References: <Pine.SV4.3.93.990617142456.16166A-100000@giascla>
X-Mailer: VM 6.71 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs Lucid
Organization: Center for Wireless Communications
Subject: [ilug-cal] Re: Kernel loading..
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
> From: Amlan Saha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ilug-cal] ANNOUNCE -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] is now fully
operational
> Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 9:18 AM
>
> I noticed that this time round, Indra, knowingly or unknowingly, has
> put the list address in the Reply-to field. I realised this when I
> noticed that I could just use "(r)eply to author" to send something
> back to the entire list, while earlier I had to use "(R)reply to
> all" for the entire list and the author and that is norm for most
> well-managed mailing lists.
>
> While I do not want to go on and on about why having the entire list
> address in the "Reply-to" field is so DANGEROUS, I would just point
> you to a site which has some excellent argument about the same -
>
> Chech out - http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body
"unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line.
FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/faq/listfaq.html
