Re: debian-user and mutt...
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:01:35PM +0000, Digby Tarvin wrote:
> Hi - thanks for the link.
> A quick survey and it does indeed seem that 'Reply-To munging' is
> what is used on nearly all of the other lists I am subscribed to.
> The arguments made against it in that link certainly make sense,
> although the author's prefered solution seems to be the
> 'reply to all' option which sends to the list and the originator,
> and hence seems to cause so many complaints here.
> A 'reply-to-list' command does seem like a good solution, although
> I don't know how universally applicable it is.
> Not all of the mailing lists seem to be adding a 'X-Mailing-List'
> header into the message. Or does 'reply-to-list' use something
> On the 'Libretto' list, for example, the only place in the headers
> other than the munged 'Reply-To' field in which the list address appears
> is in the 'To' field - so I suppose it would have to be using that
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:56:37AM -0500, cga wrote:
> > Just subscribed and may have missed some messages.. so I hope this is
> > not redundant.
> > Check this out for an argumentation against:
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
To sort of interrupt this thread as it seems to be somewhat resolved,
does anyone know why DU is the only mailing list that mutt can correctly
identify signed messages? How and where is that configured, and how can
I check/debug that one.