On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 07:10:14AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2004, Andre Speelmans <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Gerrit repeatedly said in his summary that users of decent
> > mailreaders get punished when the Reply-To: header gets munged. That
> > may be so, although I really don't see why (flamers: no need to call
> > me dumb or stupid, I will admit that here and now, so we can all
> > save the bandwidth).
>
> [flameful reply contents intended to be sent in private, with lots of
> personal references that would be too embarrassing for the entire list
> to see omitted] :-)
Luckily you have a very decent mailer. It recognizes flames and just posts a
summary. That is quite a nice feature! ;-)
> PS: sorry that this e-mail got posted to the list. I meant to reply
> in private, but the `reply in private' button somehow caused the
> message to be posted to the list, just like `reply to all' would. How
> odd...
>
> 'nuff said :-)
I got your point. But still think munging the Reply-To: is a good way to keep
lists functioning. *If* I happen to have a not so decent mailreader and don't
understand how I should do things, everything still goes to the place where
discussions should be held: the list. Should I know how to do things, I will
probably be able to mail someone in private should the need arise.
> /me wishes Mail-Followup-To: hadn't been shot down. It would have
> fixed all this mess. Unfortunately, without it, Reply-To: is as close
> as you can get, but still a PITA. Unless your MUA supports
> broken-reply-to, in which case it's just a minor one-time
> inconvenience :-)
And here I agree totally. But enough about this from me. I just wanted to
state that I find munging the Reply-To: a good way to make sure replies go
where they belong.
And as this is definitely off topic for this list now: Should someone really
want to shout at me: do it off list, do not reply to this message { :_) },
just send a private mail to me....
--
Regards,
Andre
