>>>>> "MM" == Marc MERLIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MM> Mmmh, I'm really not sure why one would want that.
I think the idea is that a list admin might want to force
reply-to-alls to go back to the whole list.
MM> Would you agree that this setting was really meant to select
MM> whether, only in the case where you do listwide reply-to
MM> munging, you replace the reply-to with the list reply-to or
MM> you add the list reply-to to the sender's set reply-to?
I don't remember, but thinking about it now, I think there's little
harm in allowing the list admin to strip reply-to even if they're not
going to munge it. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but then we all
know where that leads to. ;)
MM> In this case, would you also agree that since RFC 2822 does
MM> allow two addresses or more in the Reply-to header,
MM> DEFAULT_FIRST_STRIP_REPLY_TO should really default to 0,
MM> because your code that extends the existing reply-to allows
MM> for the reply to go to both the list and the reply-to address
MM> the sender specified?
Yes, it should default to 0. I'll make that change.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
