On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:36:15AM +0000, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
I too deliberately mung a Reply-to: header into all email originating from
mailing list irrespective of what policy the list owner(s) have set up. I
also add tags to all such messages (where the list owner(s) don't include
And how do send private, direct replies to list posters after that?
On the few occasions that I reply directly to a respondent rather than
sending a message to the list I use the "reply to all" function in my
mailer. Deleting the list address.
This totally defeats the purpose of the reply-to: header (which is to
indicate a preferred reply address) because after having removed it, you
effectively lost the information; when replying privately to that user
you will be reduced to using his From: address which may very well be
wrong and even embarrassing if that user explicitly used a reply-to to
_not_ receive replies to his work address listed in From:, for example.
Removing e-mail headers is wrong, wrong, wrong. You should never do it.
It's mind-boggling that you even try to begin to justify it. That this
debate is taking place on a list devoted to proper e-mail management is
even more surprising.
It's an ugly hack, it's a kludge, and you don't have to do it.
A better solution would be to use a decent MUA that supports a
reply-to-list function (hint: http://www.mutt.org). Pine is obsolete and
Doctrinalism in everything being "open source" doesn't help. That pine
isn't doctrinally "OpenSource" may be true. It's "free" in that one does
not have to pay. But as pine has recently been updated (version 4.33) it
ain't obsolete. Indeed I know improvements are still being made because I
discussed enhancements with the development people today. Others providing
patches to pine (see .sig) would also not agree with you.
OK, my words may have been too strong, but mutt is truly a superior MUA.
The problem with pine being non-free is not philosophical, it's just
that its development model can't even begin to compare to mutt's. Mutt
has so much functionality and configurability that after five years of
use I still haven't explored all of it (while still being perfectly
usable out of the box). These guys just keep adding more!
When I list-replied to your messages I simply hit the 'L' key and only
the procmail list was included as recipient, I didn't have to edit the
recipient list to prune cc:'s.
With a Reply-to: munged by procmail for all procmail list message all I
did was press the R key.
Yes, but I still can reply to that person directly without risking a
faux-pas and without pruning cc's.
As a "linux advocate" you shoudn't be butchering e-mail headers to get
the functionality you need.
If you work in a heterogeneous environment then munging via procmail is
the only way to get consistent and reproducible results. And as the
majority of list owners are not UNIX/Linux/Solaris gurus such munging will
always be needed to give the functionality wanted.
Mutt is supported on all unices, is friendly to elm and pine users, is
available on windows (in the standard cygwin distribution:
Local list tags removed with a patched pine courtesy of Eduardo Chappa
<>< Re: deemed!
Meaning you will go to heaven and I won't?
THERAMENE: J'ai demandé Thésée aux peuples de ces bords
Où l'on voit l'Acheron se perdre chez les morts ;
(Phèdre, J-B Racine, acte 1, scène 1)
procmail mailing list