Re: (OT) Selective non-flaming re Reply-To [Was: Finding a Remote IP]

[Alex K. Angelopoulos]

For various reasons, I'm locked into Outlook Express at the moment. 
Windows-side, I think that's what most people have issues with; the 
comprehension and flexible handling of headers for OE is abysmal with no 
improvement in sight.  That brings us back to manually changing the 
addresses, which is easy enough - in OE, you can just "Reply All" and then 
delete the personal names should you so choose.

It's a little annoying, but I can see the potential grief for 
troubleshooting and validation issues with header munging by the list 
server.

Mr Invader wrote:
i have filtering set up in Evolution and kmail and it works good.. its
all in what header you specify. If you dont like the `reply to address
setting, just add the list email to your address book with an easily
typeable name like vnc and just delete out the original poster's name,
unless of course you want it to go to both. there's always cc and bcc as
well..
    Just a longtime troll and periodic poster's 02 cts
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38, John Kaufmann wrote:
In the course of an old familiar topic [Finding a Remote IP], another
old familiar topic [re Reply-To:] arose, and David Balazic wrote at
10:49 +0200 040825:
 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 on behalf of Kenton White[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > In your message dated Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:29:08 -0500, Alex said...

 > > FYI - when replying using a client like Outlook Express, do
 > > a "Reply All" or it doesn't go to the mailing list. ;)
 That's excellent advice. However ALL of the other list servers I
 belong to change the Reply-To address to make this unnecessary.
It's a shame this
 > list doesn't. Makes filtering harder too.
What is hard about this ?
There are split opiniopns about setting Reply-To: , see
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Please try not to restart thet flame war here ;-)
That is useful advice, even to those who regard this list's reply
management as second-best.  However, in giving such advice, at a
minimum don't stack the deck by noting "split opinions" while citing
only one side of the split.  So I complete your post by adding the
other canonical citation:
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
[FWIW, regardless one's position on the issue, one may observe that
the former resorts to disparaging RFC-822 in order to make his case,
while the latter is both more gracefully written and *supports* the
RFCs -- a powerful meta-argument for the latter citation.]
A final observation:  Like most lists, the largest mailing-list
ensemble (Yahoo Groups) has always used Reply-To:<list> -- and those
lists:
   a) Rarely see any of the harmful effects cited by those who
      disparage Reply-To:<list>, and
   b) Never see the dreary and predictable frequency with which this
      topic returns to _this_ list. (Indeed, I can't think of one such
      list on which I have *ever* seen this topic.)
If facts be our guide ...
--
John
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list 
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list