Oh Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer . . . you're either new to this list, very brave, or very foolish. Next you'll want to discuss top versus bottom-posting . . . :)
Since I get the digest, I'm probably late to the discussion. But when did that ever stop me from commenting? I think you'll find, Jennifer, that people have very definite (and often intractable) opinions about this issue. If you haven't already been referred to the long and pointless articles arguing the issue, please allow me to waste your time: Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Reply-To Munging Considered Useful: http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml Reply-To Munging Still Considered Harmful: http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html Sadly, we have not, as a group, demonstrated very much capacity for thoughtful discussion on some of these issues. Inevitably the discussions have descended into flame wars -- to the point that we largely choose to ignore these concepts, for the sake of peace on the list. Of course, it has been some time since we had a flame war. Have we evolved/grown/matured to the point that we can reason together, listen thoughtfully, and discuss opposing viewpoints without bickering? Perhaps, but I'm not holding my breath. Personally, I understand your desire to have reply-to munged. I've alway thought that it was a simple case of replying to the entity from which I received the email. For example, when you, Jennifer (I point this out in case you've forgotten your name), sent an email, you sent it the the mailing list. Then the mailing list sent it to me. I expect my reply-to to go to the mailing list (the entity that sent me the email), and not Jennifer -- who never emailed me at all. (Why don't you ever email, Jennifer? You know how your mother and I worry.) Of course, other people have very valid reasons for seeing things in a different light. And I would never stir the pot by introducing arguments into a discussion so long put to rest. So if you are on the other side of the reply-to munging debate, and don't want to get your dander up, be sure to skip the preceding paragraph. And this one. And if you don't think I'm funny . . . well, you're not the first. But please do try not to be jealous that I managed to use "dander" in my email, and you didn't. Jealousy is so unbecoming . . . Anyway, Jennifer, if you ARE new to the list, welcome! I sincerely hope you find much help and comfort in our little corner of the world. Regards, Dave On 6/13/07, Jennifer Charrey wrote:
Could we please set the reply-to address of UPHPU emails to the group instead of the sender? I know it's possible in mailman, and it's the expected behavior for a mailing list... .......................... Jennifer Charrey
Oh, and here's a bottom post, for those of you who prefer that method. _______________________________________________ UPHPU mailing list [email protected] http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
