Sean Straw wrote,
| The past three of my posts (plus now this message) have all contained the
| additional header. Don't know why you're not seeing it. Perhaps it is a
| non-standard mailer on your end? <grin>
Keep grinning; you've earned it. While your face sports a big smile, mine is
beet red on this particular matter.
Because I belong to several paternalistically configured mailing lists that
clobber any original Reply-To: with one pointing to the list, I have a recipe
that removes "Reply-To: this list" for any mailing list deliveries. That's
why I couldn't see it, yet I could see the ones Dan Smith and I pointed to
other addresses. (I couldn't find it in my own [third] test either.)
I've fixed that recipe to limit it to lists that clobber Reply-To:. Automati-
cally overriding a poster's chosen return address is just plain wrong whether
a list administrator or a list member does it.
Thanks for helping me figure it out, Sean. OK, folks, I gladly retract all
I said about wondering if this list stripped out Reply-To:.
Thanks to Timothy Luoma as well for noting that his Reply-To: line came
through.
Point of information: on the list I run, I offer forced public Reply-To:
as an option, but I preserve any original Reply-To: as X-Author-Reply-To:
(unless it designates or includes the list, in which case I leave it alone).
As to Sean's other post, I'll reply separately, perhaps tomorrow, in full.
However, I'd like to address two points from there now:
First, yes, personal copies of list posts (or personally addressed originals
when the list gets a carbon) are often misdirected. Say A posts and B re-
sponds to A with a carbon to the list and C now wants to speak; Sean men-
tioned the case where C's post is another answer for A that B doesn't need
and it should be sent, if anywhere besides the list, directly to A but not
directly to B. There are other circumstances, though: if C is commenting on
something new that B brought up, there may be reason for a direct copy to B
but none for one to A. However, if B's answer is wrong or suboptimal, and C
is correcting it, direct personal copies to both A and B might be in order.
Second,
| Look at the bright side - even with the no-cc request, my sig is still only
| a four-liner. Do you really want me to make it a big disclaimer-style one?
| I'd rather not - but if it'd make you happy...
Big? Well, let's consider your .sig as we've been seeing it:
Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies. I'll get my copy from the list.
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA 94912-2395
Now, I suggested that you change it to something like this:
Replies are directed to the list. Please do not carbon me personally.
Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering
Post Box 2395 / San Rafael, CA 94912-2395
Sorry, Sean, but the way I see it, my recommendation has no more lines and
three characters *fewer* than what you're sending now. I don't see how you
reached the conclusion that your having a "big" signature would make me
happier. Further, it's hard to call me a proponent of big signatures when
mine is four lines shorter than yours.
At this point I agree fully with Michael Stone: if you want replies sent
to a particular place, it is your responsibility to set Reply-To:, not the
recipients' responsibility to heed admonitions in your text and retype reply
addresses to suit you. (And if you did set Reply-To:, it is not my preroga-
tive to override it automatically as I have *very* improperly been doing.)
So if Sean or Eli or Wotan or anyone else wants only a public reply with no
personal copy and points Reply-To: to the list, fine. (A short statement
calling readers' attention to that would be a nice touch.) If someone posts
without a Reply-To:, then the respondent has to rely on his or her own judg-
ment and reasoning.