Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello ken, On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:45:23 -0600 GMT (21/11/2003, 11:45 +0700 GMT), ken green wrote: It's too bad this issue has strayed into the functionality specific to The Bat. (I realize I'm to blame as well...) Otherwise it would be off-topic on this list. ;-) The point is that regardless whether you *can* reply to author only, the fact remains that the way this list (and many others) is set up, it does not follow the logic of most e-mail clients. If we just look at the two *most common* forms of replies in 95% of e-mail clients out there (Reply and Reply to All), munging the Reply To address does, in fact, *take away* functionality rather than add it. I don't see that. Also, the author of that article argues with his own email-client elm. Note that I'm not saying convenience - you could make a strong case for convenience, but what was pointed out in that article holds true with regard to Reply and Reply to All. The fact that The Bat can gracefully get around this is just testimony to The Bat's greatness - *NOT* evidence of the article's point being any less valid. TB is only an example. Generally speaking, I fail to see the point in the article. He prefers to use r instead of g (or the other way round, I didn't re-read the article now), and that has to do with his preferences but not with general thruths. This doesn't change the fact that the Reply-To for this lsit is set correctly to the list address, and it should be no other way. Not sure if there was an implied grin in your comment and it should be no other way but that's not exactly open-minded or fair. I meant the way I said it. It's efficient, and I am not very open-minded to inefficiency, I admit. ;-) As previously noted, while I personally don't think forcing a Reply to list is a bad thing, I do find it interesting that it seems somewhat non-standard - at least against RFCs. Ah! Now here is a point. Except, I cannot find the RFC violation. To me, the argument for changing the reply address sounds like convenience and possibly that many other lists do it. The question I'm raising is why the double standard? Isn't the RFC/standard argument most often used for bottom quoting? The inline quoting on this list is an agreement on this list; other lists use top or bottom quoting. There is no RFC standard about this. No hoops here. I have the choice of either hitting crtl-enter to reply to the list, or crtl-F4 to reply to the author. Again, I'm arguing about the principle here - despite that TB isn't drastically affected. To me (and maybe I'm alone here...) it's still a standard violation to move away from the Reply and Reply All commands seen across most e-mail clients. This point (and really this whole argument) only caught my attention because of how often standards are brought up to defend some of the other choices of this list. I still don't see the standard violation, but if you point to the RFC in question, I will look into it. I'm still confused as to why this list retains the name of the author, but puts the list address in the To: field. That's certainly not standard, is it? I'm not sending the message to the author, I'm sending it to the list. This reply is going to TBUDL - not Thomas Fernandez. E-mail sent to Thomas Fernandez should not be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I completely agree with you here. That's why I have set the macro in my Reply-Template for this list as you see above. Correct. But that has nothing to do with my choice of crtl-enter vs crtl-F4. I don't use folder templates. If you use the method I described earlier, it have EVERYTHING to do with the point I brought up. I was replying to your argument that replying to the list or to the author requires folder tempaltes. That is not the case. And (gasp!) if someone is using a different e-mail client, they certainly run the risk of sending a private message to a mailing list using the Reply All method and forgetting to delete the list address. Some people use other amilers on this list, for example when they reply from work. I haven't seen messages inadvertyedly CC'ed to the list in the case you mention. Folder templates are far more popular for this kind of amusement for the list! ;-) Sorry, you haven't convinced me. If you would like to continue to discuss this, I suggest we move the TBOT. I have copied the off-topic list in already, for that purpose. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey. (Benjamin Franklin, 1759) Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Friday, 11/21/2003, 12:24 AM Hi Thomas, On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, at 08:26:33 [GMT +0700] (which was 5:26 PM where I live) you wrote about: 'Changing the Reply-To Header?' TF @Paul: You are correct that crtl-F4 doesn't work with highlighted TF text. It used to, but that functionality has gotten lost soem versions TF back. It's a bug, I just haven't had time to add it to the BugTracker TF yet. TF This doesn't change the fact that the Reply-To for this lsit is set TF correctly to the list address, and it should be no other way. I agree completly. -- Your communication is greatly appreciated, Paul The Hatfields and McCoys feuded to see who would get to do it. Powered by The Bat! v2.01.26 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hallo George, On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:57:09 -0800GMT (21-11-03, 3:57 +0100, where I live), you wrote: Maybe with version 2, but Specials-Reply to Sender and Ctrl+F4 both produce a message with [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To: field. Not here. Crtl-F4 creates a message to your PM account. GM But you're also running 2.x, Ken's on 1.62. It was a bug and that got fixed somewhere between 16.2 and now. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
* ken green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a bit surprising, then, that a group such as TBUDL, which is so stringent about standards that could arguably be not-so-standard (cut marks, bottom posting, etc.) would go along with reply-to munging. Not really surprising: The Bat! doesn't offer a (predefinied) functionality like »Reply to list«. Carsten -- Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Carsten Thönges wrote: Not really surprising: The Bat! doesn't offer a (predefinied) functionality like »Reply to list«. I don't know of any e-mail client that has a Reply to List command. The command I was speaking of (and that was referred to in the article) was a Reply to All (or Reply to Group) command. This is pretty standard among most e-mail clients, including The Bat (button immed. to right of Reply button -- and Ctrl + Shift + F5) -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
This thread has strayed pretty far from the original topic, IMO. And I'm as much to blame as anyone else, so I apologize for that. I still believe that the point I was trying to make is valid, though it's been clouded over by specific TB functionality. The members of this list that I have seen raise the flag of standards in justifying administrative decisions have conspicuously refrained from posting anything. It's not that big of a deal - I thought it interesting to bring up. The Bat! is great. This list is great. You're all wonderful. :) -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Nick, On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:28:04 -0700 GMT (20/11/2003, 01:28 +0700 GMT), Nick Andriash wrote: I suppose I don't agree with that article... and the fact that only a few List Admins choose not to munge them... tells me that many others agree with me as well. :o) I disagree with the article as well. If I want to reply to a message on the list, I hit Reply. If the Reply-To header is set to the list, the reply goes to the list, as intended. If I want to reply to the author, I do that in such rare cases. Whether I used Reply or Reply to author is up to me, regardless of whether I use an email client that uses r and g, or I use TB. The article makes no sense. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Nennen Sie eine Touristen-Attraktion in Rom: Der schiefe Turm von Pisa Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Thomas Fernandez wrote: Whether I used Reply or Reply to author is up to me, regardless of whether I use an email client that uses r and g, or I use TB. The article makes no sense. Although I don't fully agree with the article, it does make sense. You are incorrect in assuming that using Reply or Reply to All is up to you (or Reply to author/Reply as you listed). E-mail clients have this choice, and the Bat can even ignore Reply to addresses, though only at the account-level Reply template (Do not use FROM name for REPLY-TO addresses). Is there a way you could reply privately to me without some method of copying and pasting or deleting an address? There is always going to be an extra step. In other words, there is no *direct* method to reply to the list sender only. If I sent you a message privately (not through a list) and copied my friend Bob and Alice on that message, you could either Reply (to me only) or Reply All (to me, Bob and Alice). In this case, either reply function follows the logic of most e-mail clients: reply to the person sending the message or reply to everyone who received the message. Now... all that being said :) My ratio of private replies to group replies is such that this really hasn't ever bothered me. In fact, I have created folder templates to make replies go to the group instead. And a private reply is often just a matter of using Reply All (which gets both from and Reply to) and deleting the group address. That's how it works here at least. But this is where I tend to side with some of the principles of that article. What's happening is that the *normal* behavior of Reply and Reply All (fairly standard across e-mail clients) is being changed. And it seems like this is happening to make it easier on list members who likely want to send replies to the group most of the time. Enough lists do this (munge Reply To) that now it's almost the norm - I've belonged to a great many lists over the years and the majority send replies to the group. It's a bit surprising, then, that a group such as TBUDL, which is so stringent about standards that could arguably be not-so-standard (cut marks, bottom posting, etc.) would go along with reply-to munging. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
ken green wrote: Is there a way you could reply privately to me without some method of copying and pasting or deleting an address? There is always going to be an extra step. In other words, there is no *direct* method to reply to the list sender only. Menu item Specials-Reply to the Sender (or Ctrl+F4) should do it. I just learned that a few days ago on one of these lists. -- George Using TB! 2.01.26 on Windows XP Pro 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 1. Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Thursday, 11/20/2003, 1:11 PM Hi George, On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, at 12:57:17 [GMT -0800] (which was 12:57 PM where I live) you wrote about: 'Changing the Reply-To Header?' GM Menu item Specials-Reply to the Sender (or Ctrl+F4) should do it. GM I just learned that a few days ago on one of these lists. That doesn't include selected text. Not here anyway, I wish it did. -- Your communication is greatly appreciated, Paul David Lynch: Normalcy is a straight-away path to boredom. Powered by The Bat! v2.01.26 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
George Mitchell wrote: Menu item Specials-Reply to the Sender (or Ctrl+F4) should do it. I just learned that a few days ago on one of these lists. Maybe with version 2, but Specials-Reply to Sender and Ctrl+F4 both produce a message with [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To: field. Reply or F4 creates: To: George Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] And Reply All creates: To: George Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, as I posted, to send you a message privately, I would have to use Reply All, then delete the address entered in the Cc: field. So... think about that for a minute... In order to reply to someone privately and not send a message to the list, I have to jump through the hoops above. Not really a big deal, right? But go back through the archives of this list and look at the discussions about folder templates. Isn't the main argument against using folder templates the inherent risk of sending a PRIVATE message to the list - that the list address could inadvertently get put into a message where the user doesn't want it ??? Does anyone else see some inconsistent logic here? -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello ken, On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:46:30 -0600 GMT (21/11/2003, 04:46 +0700 GMT), ken green wrote: Maybe with version 2, but Specials-Reply to Sender and Ctrl+F4 both produce a message with [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To: field. Not here. Crtl-F4 creates a message to your PM account. Reply or F4 creates: To: George Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Correct. And Reply All creates: To: George Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes. So, as I posted, to send you a message privately, I would have to use Reply All, then delete the address entered in the Cc: field. You can do that, but crtl-F4 works over here. @Paul: You are correct that crtl-F4 doesn't work with highlighted text. It used to, but that functionality has gotten lost soem versions back. It's a bug, I just haven't had time to add it to the BugTracker yet. This doesn't change the fact that the Reply-To for this lsit is set correctly to the list address, and it should be no other way. So... think about that for a minute... In order to reply to someone privately and not send a message to the list, I have to jump through the hoops above. Not really a big deal, right? No hoops here. I have the choice of either hitting crtl-enter to reply to the list, or crtl-F4 to reply to the author. But go back through the archives of this list and look at the discussions about folder templates. Isn't the main argument against using folder templates the inherent risk of sending a PRIVATE message to the list - that the list address could inadvertently get put into a message where the user doesn't want it ??? Correct. But that has nothing to do with my choice of crtl-enter vs crtl-F4. I don't use folder templates. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Bassist zum Schlagzeuger: Sag mal, was issen eigentlich eine Synkope? - Schlagzeuger: Deine Eins. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Thomas Fernandez wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:46:30 -0600 GMT (21/11/2003, 04:46 +0700 GMT), ken green wrote: Maybe with version 2, but Specials-Reply to Sender and Ctrl+F4 both produce a message with [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the To: field. Not here. Crtl-F4 creates a message to your PM account. But you're also running 2.x, Ken's on 1.62. Since I can't find an option that controls this behavior I'm wondering if this was a change in v2. If I'm reading RFCs 822 2822 correctly, the v2 behavior would seem to be correct. -- George Using TB! 2.01.26 on Windows XP Pro 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 1. Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
ken green wrote: So, as I posted, to send you a message privately, I would have to use Reply All, then delete the address entered in the Cc: field. So... think about that for a minute... In order to reply to someone privately and not send a message to the list, I have to jump through the hoops above. In 2.x you can right-click on the From address in the header area of the message preview pane and select Reply to this address. Might work in 1.62 also. It doesn't do selective quoting though. -- George Using TB! 2.01.26 on Windows XP Pro 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 1. Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
George Mitchell wrote: In 2.x you can right-click on the From address in the header area of the message preview pane and select Reply to this address. Wow. Yes, you can do that in 1.62r. Very cool. Didn't know that. Thanks for the tip. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Thomas Fernandez wrote: Not here. Crtl-F4 creates a message to your PM account. It's too bad this issue has strayed into the functionality specific to The Bat. (I realize I'm to blame as well...) The point is that regardless whether you *can* reply to author only, the fact remains that the way this list (and many others) is set up, it does not follow the logic of most e-mail clients. If we just look at the two *most common* forms of replies in 95% of e-mail clients out there (Reply and Reply to All), munging the Reply To address does, in fact, *take away* functionality rather than add it. Note that I'm not saying convenience - you could make a strong case for convenience, but what was pointed out in that article holds true with regard to Reply and Reply to All. The fact that The Bat can gracefully get around this is just testimony to The Bat's greatness - *NOT* evidence of the article's point being any less valid. This doesn't change the fact that the Reply-To for this lsit is set correctly to the list address, and it should be no other way. Not sure if there was an implied grin in your comment and it should be no other way but that's not exactly open-minded or fair. As previously noted, while I personally don't think forcing a Reply to list is a bad thing, I do find it interesting that it seems somewhat non-standard - at least against RFCs. To me, the argument for changing the reply address sounds like convenience and possibly that many other lists do it. The question I'm raising is why the double standard? Isn't the RFC/standard argument most often used for bottom quoting? No hoops here. I have the choice of either hitting crtl-enter to reply to the list, or crtl-F4 to reply to the author. Again, I'm arguing about the principle here - despite that TB isn't drastically affected. To me (and maybe I'm alone here...) it's still a standard violation to move away from the Reply and Reply All commands seen across most e-mail clients. This point (and really this whole argument) only caught my attention because of how often standards are brought up to defend some of the other choices of this list. I'm still confused as to why this list retains the name of the author, but puts the list address in the To: field. That's certainly not standard, is it? I'm not sending the message to the author, I'm sending it to the list. This reply is going to TBUDL - not Thomas Fernandez. E-mail sent to Thomas Fernandez should not be addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone explain that one to me... ;) But go back through the archives of this list and look at the discussions about folder templates. Isn't the main argument against using folder templates the inherent risk of sending a PRIVATE message to the list - that the list address could inadvertently get put into a message where the user doesn't want it ??? Correct. But that has nothing to do with my choice of crtl-enter vs crtl-F4. I don't use folder templates. If you use the method I described earlier, it have EVERYTHING to do with the point I brought up. And (gasp!) if someone is using a different e-mail client, they certainly run the risk of sending a private message to a mailing list using the Reply All method and forgetting to delete the list address. -- Ken Green Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4 Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Everyone, Yesterday I wrote a letter to a Linux-Mandrake Mailing List using TB, and for some reason the Reply-To header was the same as the From address. That is the first time I've ever noticed that... all my other messages to Mailing Lists had the List address as the Reply-To entry. Is there something I may have done to change all that? I always presumed that messages to Mailing Lists carried the List address as the Reply-To entry. Where in the Options or Account Properties, or Folder Properties, or even AB entries... can I check to make sure that all future mailings to Mailing Lists carry the List address in the Reply-To header? Thanks for your help... -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using The Bat! v2.01.26 on Windows 98 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Nick, On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:27:26 -0700 GMT (19/11/2003, 21:27 +0700 GMT), Nick Andriash wrote: Yesterday I wrote a letter to a Linux-Mandrake Mailing List using TB, and for some reason the Reply-To header was the same as the From address. That is the first time I've ever noticed that... all my other messages to Mailing Lists had the List address as the Reply-To entry. It's a setting in the mailing-list software. Is there something I may have done to change all that? Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. 13. Los Angeles's full name is El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula and can be abbreviated to 3.63% of its size,L.A. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 15:27:26, Nick Andriash wrote: Is there something I may have done to change all that? This is a setting of the mailing list software. If the list is using MailMan, go to it's control page (the address is usually in the message headers), and check if you can change the Reply-To setting there. -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ http://deepthought.ena.si/ The desire for modeling a prototype is inversely proportional to the decline of the prototype. -- Bye's Second Law of Model Railroading Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hi Nick, @19-Nov-2003, 07:27 -0700 (19-Nov 14:27 UK time) Nick Andriash [NA] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to TBUDL: NA Is there something I may have done to change all that? No - it is a sad delusional condition suffered by many *nix list admins who believe that nobody intends to reply to the list by default and that all replies should be sent offline. Fortunately, we in the real world live in enlightened times :-). NA Where in the Options or Account Properties, or Folder NA Properties, or even AB entries... can I check to make sure that NA all future mailings to Mailing Lists carry the List address in NA the Reply-To header? You can't, but you can use a folder level reply template to enforce a reply to the list. Now, I'm usually against such practices because of the dangers and difficulties when sending a reply to a list that *should* have gone privately - or clicking a mailto while the folder has the focus. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.01.26 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 ' pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Thomas, Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 7:47:00 AM, you wrote: address. That is the first time I've ever noticed that... all my other messages to Mailing Lists had the List address as the Reply-To entry. It's a setting in the mailing-list software. I thought as much because I've never done anything specific to ensure that the Reply-To address is anything but the List address in any of my List Mailings. That message of mine to Linux-Mandrake was the very first message I have ever posted to that List... and was scolded for having the wrong Reply-To address. Is there something I may have done to change all that? Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. I've done that and it works nicely now, but I'm wondering if I should do that for all the Mailing Lists I belong to? Thanks for the help Thomas... -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using The Bat! v2.01.26 on Windows 98 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hi Thomas, @19-Nov-2003, 21:47 +0700 (19-Nov 14:47 UK time) Thomas Fernandez said to Nick: It's a setting in the mailing-list software. Is there something I may have done to change all that? Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. That won't help - it will be replaced by the list server. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.01.26 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 ' pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Marck, Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 8:03:24 AM, you wrote: No - it is a sad delusional condition suffered by many *nix list admins who believe that nobody intends to reply to the list by default and that all replies should be sent offline. Fortunately, we in the real world live in enlightened times :-). He he he!! I just never had that happen to me before. I was scolded, albeit privately, for including my own address in the Reply-To header, but I told them that I never purposely set out to do that. I took Thomas's advice and that seems to have corrected the problem. You can't, but you can use a folder level reply template to enforce a reply to the list. Now, I'm usually against such practices because of the dangers and difficulties when sending a reply to a list that *should* have gone privately - or clicking a mailto while the folder has the focus. Ha ha ha ha!! Yes... I remember many conversations on that subject! ;o) I'm going to stay away from Folder level templates... except for the GnuPG List which sadly requires one. -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using The Bat! v2.01.26 on Windows 98 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Nick, On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:06:40 -0700 GMT (19/11/2003, 22:06 +0700 GMT), Nick Andriash wrote: Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. I've done that and it works nicely now, but I'm wondering if I should do that for all the Mailing Lists I belong to? With most mailing lists (like this one) it won't have any effect, as the reply-to will be overwritten. There are mailing lists that set the list address only if no reply-to is set, so you don't want to set a reply-to for those. Then there are mailing lists (and I belong to one of those) where people ask questions on the list, but replies are supposed to be private, so what you were scolded for on the Mandrake list is desired behaviour on others... oh well, I guess there is no universal answer to your question. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Blamestorming: Sitting around in a group discussing why a deadline was missed or a project failed, and who was responsible. Message reply created with The Bat! 2.01.26 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Marck, Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 8:13:59 AM, you wrote: Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. That won't help - it will be replaced by the list server. Hmmm? I wonder then what happened to my List Posting where the Reply-To header was the From address. Strange that if in fact the List Server is the one responsible for changing the Reply-To header... why my own address ended up in that slot. -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using The Bat! v2.01.26 on Windows 98 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
* Nick Andriash [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yesterday I wrote a letter to a Linux-Mandrake Mailing List using TB, and for some reason the Reply-To header was the same as the From address. That is the first time I've ever noticed that... all my other messages to Mailing Lists had the List address as the Reply-To entry. This is done intentionally by the list administrators. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. Carsten -- pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hi Nick, @19-Nov-2003, 08:29 -0700 (19-Nov 15:29 UK time) Nick Andriash [NA] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Include the %ReplyTo=[EMAIL PROTECTED] macro in your AB template for that list. That won't help - it will be replaced by the list server. I may have been jumping the gun here. If the listserv doesn't touch the ReplyTo then it would be left as the default from TB. NA ... why my own address ended up in that slot. ... which explains that. -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v2.01.26 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 ' pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Changing the Reply-To Header?
Hello Carsten, Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 8:21:31 AM, you wrote: This is done intentionally by the list administrators. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. What they claim as a 2nd Reply-To header if you direct your Reply to All... is not really a 2nd Reply-To header... but an entry to the Cc: header. That Linux Mandrake List is the only List where they don't munge the Reply-To header. All my Yahoo Groups Lists munge the header, and by doing so they direct more replies through to the List. I suppose I don't agree with that article... and the fact that only a few List Admins choose not to munge them... tells me that many others agree with me as well. :o) I have though added the macro that Thomas has suggested, and that seems to take care of my problem. Thanks Carsten for the reply... It answered my question. -- -=Nick Andriash=- -=Creston, B.C. Canada=- Using The Bat! v2.01.26 on Windows 98 pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 2.01.3 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
