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 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