Re: How come there is no `Reply to' field
On Dec 27, firstname.lastname@example.org (Christian Hudon) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Walter Tautz wrote:
> > I am curious as to why there is no `Reply to' field from this list? Is
> > this a deliberate technique to decrease traffic. Just wondering...
> Because "Reply-to: email@example.com" is evil. :-)
> Are you adding in manually "firstname.lastname@example.org" to the cc each
> time you want to reply to the list? If so, poke around your mailer a bit
> more. Every decent email program has an option that does "reply to all".
> On elm, it's the "g" key. Pine asks you if you want to reply to all
> recipients when you reply to a list message or a message with a cc.
> If you're not using one of these two, look around the help files!
In mutt, you can define addresses of the lists you read, and then
use the command 'list-reply' (typically bound to 'L') to reply to
that list -- it looks through several headers for a potential list
address, it doesn't have to be in the "To:" field. It's better than
'reply-all' (IMO) because you reply just to the list, rather than
to the list and any explicit addresses.
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream
"Tourists -- have some fun with New York's
hard-boiled cabbies. When you get to your
destination, say to your driver, "Pay? I was
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com