I'm hijacking this thread, because it's gotten WAY off the original topic. On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:29:29AM -0800, Charles Stevenson wrote:
> non-free thing. I think mutt deals with PGP a little easier too. I Pine does fine with either pgp4pine or pgpenvelope, both of which give PGP/GnuPG support to pine, often with a little help from procmail. Mostly, other than roles support (which is painful to simulate in mutt), pine lags behind mutt in a lot of regards--except for usability of the interface, of course. :) Then again, mutt's inline support is pretty broken, IMHO. Most Windows users use inline PGP, and not PGP/MIME, so I think Pine's third-party utilities come out ahead on that one. > those threads about why Reply-to munging was bad. I know I've replied > to a list on accident and sometimes been embarassed about it ;-) Well, and sometimes *without* it, I've hit the wrong key and sent a reply back to a specific individual instead of the list. I suppose the question typically comes down to which is the lesser evil in any given situation. I find that, when dealing with newbies or non-technical folks, Reply-To is important because otherwise they throw up their hands in clueless frustration. But technical people should know better (and anyone using Linux *ought* to be striving for more technical competence), and *forcing* reply-to seems to go against the grain somehow. That said, it makes no difference to me whether I hit reply, list-reply, or group-reply, so long as I *know* which one I'm supposed to key in. So, the better question is: "Should RLUG support a munged reply-to header? What goal would it advance?" Let the flame-fest and circular arguments begin! :) -- Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/ _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
