[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Responses to the list (oops)

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:40:50 -0700
Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:

>     Wrong, wrong, wrong.  How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
> munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me.  It was 822 that had an explicit
> reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822.  2822 *removed* that
> reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to
> munging.
>     The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that
> people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies
> (it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate
> such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed.

To add to the insanity (at least with sylpheed-claws-gtk2) it seems if
the Reply To: field contains the posters email address then no matter
what you choose (reply, reply to all, reply to mailing list) only the
posters email address is supplied, if you want to send a reply to the
list you have to add the list address and if you don't want the reply
to go to the posters email address you have to remove it. DOH!

Later, Seeker 

Reply to: