Re: Bogus reply-to
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >I personally think that policies on mailing lists shouldn't dictate
> >things like reply-to (not that this one has been made publicly known
> >other than through your rants), because some people prefer to get a
> >reply-to (me, for example - reply-to means I can see any responses to
> >me straight away without having to wait for the mailing list to do its
> >thing), and I think it clutters the list to say "please reply to
> >me". Let your mailer do its thing (set your own reply-to[1] as
> >necessary, as you do), and hope that everyone respects it.
> >
> The list's settings should reflect its primary use. This is a discussion
> list and its settings should reflect that.
So is eg. LKML.
What I am saying, is all of these discussion lists have differnt policies.
It's kind of silly expecting people to remember which policy belongs to
which list, and blasting people when they get it wrong.
--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
> As you know, Linus took the word the penguins kept saying over and
> over again, rot13'ed it, and used that as the name of his OS.
So, who's going to record this .au file:
"Hello, my name is Yvahf Gbeinyqf, and I pronounce yvahk, yvahk."
-- Anthony de Boer && Michel Buijsman @ ASR
Reply to: