On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:28:51PM -0800, Ben Johnson wrote: > surprises, I would rather be surprised that my email is being sent to > fewer rather than more people than I expect. correcting the "too few" > mistake is a lot easier to correct than the "too many" mistake. ya
That's a very good point. Of course, on a recent business list, I had to use reply munging because our "group" discussion was taking place offline because the individuals involved couldn't be trained to reply to the list, no matter how hard I tried. > Another good argument I believe remember reading a few times, long > ago, is that the Reply-To: header is intended for individual use. If > that header is munged by a list then its intended purpose is made Oh, yes. So, if I send mail from (gasp!) charter.net, but want to read my non-list replies at hotmail.com, I'd use reply-to accordingly. Munging would replace that header, and all *offline* replies would go to the sending address, rather than my preferred reply-to address. On the other hand, replies to the list would still go to the subscribed address, so I'm unsure how relevent this really is, unless you belong to a list where you *want* to receive offline replies CC'd to an alternate address. Does anybody really do that? > impossible. and... I believe there are other headers available > (though not widely used/implemented) that are specifically designed > for the functionality we're discussing. Now you've got me curious. What headers are we talking about? -- Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/ _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
