2008/6/16 Harold Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 2008/6/16 Lisi Reisz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > <snip> > >> >> > >> > Unless you only use Reply All to unsubscribed posters??? But that would >> > still mean you having to take special action for them, as compared to >> > subscribed posters. >> >> Yes - this is what I do. I also have unsubscribed posters filtered into a >> separate sub-directory of my OOo folder, so that it is easy to tell. When >> I >> reply from that sub-directory I "reply all" - though I have been known to >> forget :-( . But for subscribed posters I merely "reply". >> >> Lisi >> > Hmmm. Doesn't that scheme make threads hard to see when the thread has some > messages from unsubscribed posters and others from subscribed ones? > > I'm also not convinced your mailer is being polite. I deliberately set my > "reply to" address to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" to avoid getting personal messages. > Your > mailer would not honour that etiquette if you used Reply All to one of my > messages.
Sorry to reply to my own post but ... RFC 822: - If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. - If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. -- Harold Fuchs London, England Please reply *only* to [email protected]
