[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

OT: Reply etiquette



jedd <jedd@progsoc.org> writes:

> On Wed June 16 2004 10:52 pm, Alexander Nordström wrote:
>  ] Please don't change the Reply-To header to exclude the list. You
>  ] may add yourself to it if you want CCs (and I have assumed that
>  ] this is the case), but make sure the list gets included too.
>
>  Sorry.  Had it set that way for ages.  I've fixed it now, I think.  I
>  guess because I always use reply-all on lists, rather than just
>  reply, I've never noticed the problem against other users .. hence
>  never checked it for my own account.

You shouldn't be using Reply-to-all, but rather Reply-to-List.  If your
MUA doesn't have such basic functionality, file a bug report (or better
yet, fix it and submit a patch).

>  Doing a reply-all here of course would result in a bounce when
>  delivering to the NOSPAM address.  Is this more convenient?  Who can
>  say.

Email address munging is considered harmful.
http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

-- 
Paul Johnson
<baloo@ursine.ca>
Linux.  You can find a worse OS, but it costs more.

Attachment: pgpt5wdnogPIO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: