| > I think I'll go
| > back to deleting Reply-To: from this list when it points to the posting
| > address, but I'll add some note to the text of my copy that the author is
| > kind.
| I do not understand your point "that kind".
Good old English. I didn't mean "so thoughtful" but "of that type," the type
who directs Reply-To: to the list on his/her own posts when the list software
does not. As you see, even later in the morning I still didn't have all
cylinders firing and didn't notice the ambiguity of that phrasing.
The note I'd add to the text of my copy is to be extra careful not to send the
reply both publicly and privately, because the author is the kind who really
hates to get a privately mailed copy of a post to a list. Some people think
it means "you're not smart enough to understand my answer if you read it only
once" and get absolutely infuriated when someone does it. Actually, I think
I'd just strip Reply-To: from the head and move it to the top of the body.
There it would catch my attention.
| ref your original post:
[followed by a repeat of my original post]
Yes, that was my original post. Nobody could tell from it that I had meant to
send it privately and that posting it to the list was a mistake. The only
hint of a clue was that it had no attribution above my quote from you (in
private email I'd expect you to recognize your own words and not need to be
told "you were the one who said this"), but for all anyone except me knew
that, rather than the addressing, could have been the part where I made a
procmail mailing list