On Wednesday, March 27, 2002, 12:39:07 AM, Marck wrote: MDP> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- MDP> Hash: SHA1
MDP> Hi Chris, MDP> @26 March 2002, 18:34:09 +0100 (17:34 UK time) Chris Lilley wrote in MDP> [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. MDP> There is no behaviour change. Some configuration settings may have MDP> 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. MDP> That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. I agree its one way of looking at it. They were not my words, just ones from the site whose url proceeded them. >> 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." MDP> Correct. But I believe your complaint is fuelled by the fact that you MDP> attempted to post to *both* the list and the sender. With respect, you don't know what I attempted since you were not on any of the lists i was referring to. MDP> When anyone does MDP> that, a moderator has to approve the post in case the dual address was MDP> inadvertent and the mail should have been wholly private. That may be true for *this* current list; it is not generally true. MDP> It's the way MDP> we have our lists configured because of such errors having occurred - MDP> often through poor use of folder templates. To sender or to list, MDP> fine. Both? Redundant - and it also means that the original sender MDP> ends up with two copies of your reply. While I respect your freedom, I MDP> don't appreciate redundancy, especially when it means extra work for MDP> me <g>. It means no extra work for you whatsoever, and is the general practice for the fifty or so lists that I am speaking about, because they are separately archived and thus it is common to copy specific multiple lists. So feel free to respect my freedom safe in the knowledge that it involves no extra work for you. >> 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. MDP> Our lists leave from and to (which is always the list anyway) alone MDP> and add a "Reply to" header to direct replies back to the list. Quite. But the lists i was referring to, as I said, don't have Reply-To set like that and it was the behavior with those lists that I was asking about. >> 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. MDP> If it works the same then what are you asking? There is no difference MDP> here between the versions anyway. Check the part in asterisks in the description for 1.60 and note that it is not there in 1.53 .... thus, a change. >> 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. MDP> Why reply to all when you should only reply /either/ to the list /or/ MDP> off-list, not both? >> Is this change intentional? MDP> There has been no change that I can see. See above. I think that, because you thought I was talking specifically about this current list, you had the config of this list in mind and thus your response was not always to what I wrote. >> 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? MDP> The administrator is called in by the server, not by TB, whenever you MDP> do a reply all. There is no administrator on the lists I am referring to, and they are not configured like the tbudl list. -- Chris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________ 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]
