>>>>> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> The other thing I'd like like to see is an option to 'strip CVR> all reply-tos' so that a reply-to that is set as it enters CVR> the mailman system is removed and not propogated. Allowing CVR> and end-user's reply-to to propogate can cause all sorts of CVR> havoc, and frankly, can be used to mailbomb someone if you CVR> want to play troll. Let me summarize what the system does now (apologies if I'm just repeating myself ;). I think it is flexible enough to support any Reply-To: policy your list owners might want to impose. - You can config MM to strip any Reply-To: header on the original message, or preserve it. This is orthogonal to any Reply-To: munging that may happen later. - You can config MM to set a Reply-To: to point back to the list, or to any explicit address you may want. - All the Reply-To: addresses that will show up on the reflected message are put in a single Reply-To: header, so as to be maximally RFC compliant (RFC 2822 doesn't allow for multiple Reply-To: headers, but does allow for multiple addresses on a single Reply-To: -- go figure). CVR> Bob's got a point. There has to be a way to say "don't CVR> override", although, if you don't enable the option for a CVR> list, don't you already get that? I've totally lost context on this question so I can't answer it. -Barry ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py