On 2 Jun 2002 Charlie Summers (charlie(_at_)lofcom(_dot_)com) wrote:
At 8:23 AM -0400 6/2/02, Alan Clifford is rumored to have typed:
No, I put that in. Isn't it normal to reply to the list? I can take it
out if it isn't the convention in this list.
It is, to my knowledge, unheard of for a USER to munge a reply-to pointing
back to a mailing list. Some listmasters seem to think it's a good thing to
make this munge (I find it silly, and remove it from those lists who have
listmasters wrong-headedly choosing to add it), [ ... ]
This topic has been debated to death in almost every mailing list
I've ever subscribed to. Please, let's not repeat it here. If
you're interested, you can read all about it here
What is a From Header and Where Do Replies Go
<http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/changing_from/#what>
Among other things, I have links to the following often-cited
articles
* Keith Moore's reply-problem-list.txt
* Chip Rosenthal's ``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful: An
Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators
* Simon Hill's Reply-To Munging Considered Useful: An Earnest
Plea to Mailing List Administrators
* Evolution-hackers mailing list: Re: Reply to list by Jamie Zawinski
* gnus mailing list: Re: Mail-Followup-To and Re:
Mail-{Reply,Followup}-To considered harmful
* Jacob Palme's IETF Internet-Draft The ''Mail-Followup-To'' header
* D.J. Bernstein's Mail-Followup-To and Mail-Reply-To
* comp.mail.pine: Re: rfc 2369 commands
Thanks,
Nancy
--
PROCMAIL <http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/>
IMAP <http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/imap/isps/>
PINE <http://www.ii.com/internet/messaging/pine/>
-- I N F I N I T E I N K www.ii.com N A N C Y M c G O U G H --
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail