On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:03:46 CDT, Nathan E Norman writes: >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,=20 > >Note the smiley :) Yesyesyes, I´ve noticed it before ;-) >> Setting Reply-To as a list-member or forcing a certain Reply-To ($list=20 >> or $poster) as list-admin? I can=B4t find anything harmful in the=20 >> 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? Personally I set Reply-To on a per mail basis, in fact I use it much like Followup-To in usenet. If I want to get Cc´ed I simply Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org, waldner@waldner.priv.at I can´t see anything wrong with that. > 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). See above, you can have more than one Reply-To-Header and you can put more than one address per Reply-To-Header also. Choose as you see fit ;-) I can see a problem, though, if someone wants "normal" follow-ups to the list, but the occasional private reply to an address other than which was posted from. Of course, this is all IMHO, and I´m somewhat sleep-deprived at the moment and haven´t had enough coffee yet, so please take it with a grain of salt <insert next smiley here, I don´t want to repeat that too often>. cheers, &rw -- -- Those who think they know it all are -- very annoying to those of us who do. ----
Attachment:
pgpYuu4ZofoSJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature