On 10/4/07, Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 08:47 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: > > > There's also the Mail-followup-to "standard". > > It's not a standard, and is unlikely to ever become a standard. > > It was proposed as a standard but as far as I can tell, died due to lack > of consensus. > > An alternative (the list-* headers inserted by mailman) was proposed, > accepted, and is now a standard. > > > I haven't used it > > much, but here's how I think it works: The person initiating the > > discussion inserts a special header line, called > > Mail-followup-to, when they compose/send their message. When > > repliers click reply or reply-all (assuming their mail client > > adheres to the standard?), rather than do the default, the mail > > client will put on the To line what you (the original poster) > > specified in the special header line. > > Accidents happen when a list reflector sets headers intended to cause a > mail user agent's "reply" command to reply to other than the originator > of the message. > > People hit "reply" to respond to just the sender, insert content not > intended for broad distribution, and then hit "send" before noticing th > "to" was not as expected.
True, but as this technique becomes more widespread, people are learning to be more careful. All though it is not part of mailman, I have seen spam filters, that manage a whitelist, by sending an email back to the user confirming that they meant to send the email. http://a-s-k.sourceforge.net/ > > - Bill > > > > _______________________________________________ > website-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
