> From [email protected] Mon Apr 28 20:56:52 2014 > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:55:09 -0500 > From: Gerard Beekmans <[email protected]> > To: Website Maintenance List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [website] New Post for Testing > > On 2014-04-28 13:24, akhiezer wrote: > >> From [email protected] Mon Apr 28 18:50:44 2014 > >> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:48:52 -0500 > >> From: Gerard Beekmans <[email protected]> > >> To: Website Maintenance List <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [website] New Post for Testing > >> > >> New post for testing. > > > > 2nd reply, this time with mua 'replyto' not set. > > > > Gerard, could you reply to this pls? Thanks. > > > > akh > > > > > > -- > Reply. >
Yay, and it seems to work just fine. Thanks for taking the time on this; 's much appreciated. Will keep an eye on it. With the 'replyto' field set here (==sender_address) in mua, msgs that _I_ sent to list, would should up back here with both my own sender address plus '[email protected]' in the 'Reply-To' field. And any folks's replies, would show up here twice - once direct from their email address via their isp/webmail, and once via list: and I would always just be sure to reply to the from-list item, of course. It's (seemingly) worked fine like that for years now: but seems like the switchover - u mentioned new-ver mailman &c - doesn't like it. No probs to leave replyto field empty here in mua for lfs stuff. rgds, akhiezer p.s. iirc I think that Aleksandar Kuktin did mention in passing - in a rather detailed-subject thread - s'thing like, 'hey, your replyto field is set'; and I didn't followup on clarifying what was the intended import of the note. -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/website FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
