On 2009/02/08 10:01 AM Brian Barker wrote:
At 10:37 08/02/2009 -0500, Gene Young wrote:
Please clarify. It was my understanding that I send messages to the
"List", then the "List" sends the message to those people who are
subscribed to receive list messages. If this is the case then the
"sender" from whom I receive the e-mail is the "List" and therefor
the reply-to SHOULD be the "List", no?
The word in the RFC is "author", not your "sender". For what it's
worth, I see the author of a message as whoever constructs it - the
poster, that is. I don't think the list can be described as an
author. In any case, it's that extra Reply-To: header that creates
the problem that's been mentioned.
If you are saying that you think replies ought to go to the list,
that's a valid opinion, but I claim that it is the replier's privilege
to decide whether to agree. But we are probably agreed that the
present arrangement, whereby many replies go to everyone except the
one person who needs to read them, is particularly silly.
(Oh, and - as I hinted before - I recognise that not everyone will
agree with me on this!)
Brian Barker
The use of the reply-to header on this list is correct. The real problem
is allowing people to post to the list without being subscribed to it.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." -
Edgard Varese
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
