This brings us back to the other flame war. The one about whether the
mailing list should automatically add the "reply-to:" field to the list.
I feel a bit guilty about this. It all started by me asking why I should
get every mail twice (people hitting "reply-to all"). The result were, on
one hand, an email by Nadav asking to add the "Reply-To:" field to the
headers. On the other hand, there was an email by Gilad explaining (or
actually - pointing) about why a mailing list should NOT add "Reply-To:"
headers.
One of the reasons mentioned there for not adding the header was that this
causes you to risk a personally intended email to be sent to the entire
list, as well as losing needed information in order to be able to contact
the original poster, and necessiting manual operation in order to actually
reply in private.
Due to all that hassle, and the extremly "under cover" approach that both
Yosi and Eli have taken about the misdirected email, I vote the
"reply-to:" field be removed from the headers.
One last note - it seems that we don't have as many "Linux rulez, BSD
sucks" zealots here as was expected. Thank goodness for small miracles.
Shachar
Eli Marmor wrote:
> Yosi wrote:
..
>
> I know that Yosi's intention was to send this e-mail privately. But
> it was sent to the list, and before a flame-war will begin, I want
> to note that what he wrote about OpenBSD is considered a concensus
> among the experts. I'm not an expert (my main *BSD's experience is
> with NetBSD), but this is what the experts claim, so please think
> twice before flaming him.
..
> --
> Eli Marmor
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
