On Thu, 19 Jul 2012, Barry Smith wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > This is what I do for myself [with pine] > > > > Doesn't solve the problem because the user still has in their header the > > developers email address. > > > > This is something that a developer using certain hosts can do to make the > > issue moot, not something that involves the user. > > I do not understand this. If the user knows your email address they can > still send you email. You are telling me you can send me an email that does > not contain your email address somewhere in the header? > > yes reply-to is a good start but it is not a finish. People by-pass that.
I think the primary issue is folks doing 'reply' instead of 'reply-all'. [so a mechaism that adds a reply-to:petsc-maint] would suffice such use case. Any other bypass mechanisms are not worth dealing with. > > > And then there will be no more private > > > messages [between us] on petsc-maint :) > > > > Why? petsc-maint server will always bounce everything sent to it back > > to the developers. > > > > How often does some not-to-be-named developer remove the user from the Cc > > list and make a snide remark? > > > > If you answered Never, you earn two points. > > This is easy. The not-be-named developer simply modifies the subject line > in any way. The match doesn't work so the message does not go back to the > user. e-mails have other hidden headers that are used by RT to identify/process such e-mails. I don't think just changing subject line will suffice. Satish
