On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:59:40 CDT, Nathan E Norman writes: >On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 10:22:10PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: >> >>Many people object to being cc'ed (and so having to remember whether >> >>they've replied to one copy of the message when they've encountered the >> >>other one). If there's a Mail-Followup-To: header or a 'Mail-Copies-To: >> >>nobody', it's a good idea to honour it. >> s/Mail.*/Reply-To/ >> Most MUAs will only know what to do with a Reply-To, not anything else. >I don't think this is really true, at least not in GNU/Linux land. >mutt and gnus support Mail-Followup-To: ... what else is there? :) Simply put, a whole world of MUAs (look at my headers for example, sometimes I even use mh (not _n_mh) directly, I´m also known for invoking sendmail directly if needs be, but that´s another story). >Debian listmasters believe setting >Reply-To: on listmail is harnful; FWIW I'm inclined to agree. Setting Reply-To as a list-member or forcing a certain Reply-To ($list or $poster) as list-admin? I can´t find anything harmful in the former... http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html cheers, &rw -- -- Basically, no matter what you compare spammers -- to, that object will be insulted. -- -- Chris Pickett, asr ----
Attachment:
pgpsPybr2Rers.pgp
Description: PGP signature