On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 11:43:34PM +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: > >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, Note the smiley :) > 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 Ah, perhaps I didn't catch your meaning then ... are you suggesting that users set Reply-To: to the list? I guess that's an option as long as the user doesn't want to use Reply-To: for something else (e.g they send from user@domain.com but want replies at user@domain.net. This argument may be a bit weak if you take into account the fact that the user wants replies to go to the list and not to their address at all). Regards, -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgp3TlTjV1OnG.pgp
Description: PGP signature