Re: Bogus reply-to
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:28:11AM -0600, Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
> On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
> >
> > Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant RFCs
> > and are not in wide use outside of Linux and other highly technical
> > mailing lists. Support for MFT and MCT headers is strictly optional,
> > so many mail client authors/vendors simply choose not to support them.
>
> Yup. I realize this. I'm just so frustrated. If I request no cc's in
> my sig, I get tons of mail telling me that I should use the headers
> instead. If I use the headers, I get cc'd. Actually, I got cc'd even
> with the request right there in the bloody sig. (I seem to use british
> cursewords when frustrated online; don't ask me why.) And I do
> understand why this bogus reply-to is not the best solution, but I
> figure that it might get the message across. And I guess I figure that
> folks who know enough to help me with my questions probably use clients
> that respect the headers and handle the reply-to properly, although I
> could of course be wrong and yes, it's awfully heavy handed and rather
> self-serving at the expense of the other list members.
>
> I guess the socially responsible thing to do is, what -- just put up
> with dupes? I guess it's not such a big deal, but it irritates me all
> out of proportion to the incidents.
For procmail:
# Duplicate message filtering
#Turns ON or OFF filtering of exact message duplicates.
DOUBLEMESSAGESFILTER=ON
:0 Wh: msgid.lock
* DOUBLEMESSAGESFILTER ?? ^^ON^^
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
# END Duplicate message filtering
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: