-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris,
@26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have noticed a change in behavior since moving to 1.60 from 1.53 > This affects replying to lists in absence of Reply-to headers. There is no behaviour change. Some configuration settings may have been changed. > Munging Reply-to headers is considered bad practice: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > Which is summarized as > "Some administrators justify Reply-To munging by saying, ``All > responses should go directly to the list anyway.'' This is arrogant. That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. > You should allow me to decide exactly how I wish to respond to a > message. If I feel a public response is justified, I'll hit the > ``g'' key and tell Elm to do a group-reply. If I believe a private > response is more appropriate, I'll use ``r'' to send one. Please > allow me the freedom to decide how to handle a message." Correct. But I believe your complaint is fuelled by the fact that you attempted to post to *both* the list and the sender. When anyone does that, a moderator has to approve the post in case the dual address was inadvertent and the mail should have been wholly private. It's the way we have our lists configured because of such errors having occurred - often through poor use of folder templates. To sender or to list, fine. Both? Redundant - and it also means that the original sender ends up with two copies of your reply. While I respect your freedom, I don't appreciate redundancy, especially when it means extra work for me <g>. > The lists I have been using follow this advice and leave From and To > and Cc alone. They add a Sender header to indicate the agent that > sent the message. I can provide sample headers if that will help. Our lists leave from and to (which is always the list anyway) alone and add a "Reply to" header to direct replies back to the list. > In 1.53, reply replied to the person on the From field, and reply to > all replied to the From and Cc fields. > In 1.60, reply still works the same and reply to all replies to > From, Cc *and Sender* fields. If it works the same then what are you asking? There is no difference here between the versions anyway. > This has resulted in my sending a number of mails to a list admin > address, because the Sender field gets copied on my reply to all. Why reply to all when you should only reply /either/ to the list /or/ off-list, not both? > Is this change intentional? There has been no change that I can see. > is there a way to configure The Bat! to not do that? Or do I have to > manually delete the admin address on each mail? The administrator is called in by the server, not by TB, whenever you do a reply all. We are asked to moderate an inappropriately addressed message in case there has been a mistake. If you want to reply on-list, just hit reply. If you want to reply privately, hit Ctrl-F4 (reply to sender). Please do not reply to all. It is always pointless on an instant response list. If you are replying on a list which only sends out messages once a week, sure you'd want to get the reply to the person asking the question a bit quicker than by sending it back to the list. Horses for courses. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator � TB! v1.60-14F4B4B2 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 � -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6-2 (MingW32) iD8DBQE8oQaeOeQkq5KdzaARAl6SAKCFWlb6s64dN9ifEeERnMK+6ymnaQCg+Erj Wv6RSVbfESG/lw7hYsHoQCQ= =TkPV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________________ Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
