On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:20:52AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > > The *only* way you lose functionality by rewriting reply-to is if you > > also munge from so it looks like the massage came from the list. I've > > know lists that do that, but this isn't one of them. > > That would be a change in list functionality I'd welcome as an > alternative to the current situation, if we wanted to keep the reply-to > header pristine.
note: That doesn't mean I particularly want to keep the reply-to header pristine, just that it would at least be an improvement over the current situation since it would allow more options in MUA configuration to get a more-expected behavior when replying to the list. > > > That siad, maybe it made sense ten years ago. We get this wonderful > > resource for free, and if the people who maintain the hardware and > > software that runs it don't have the time or inclination to muck about > > in the rewrite rules...it's a fairly minor annoyance, and I'm just > > glad this list is here at all. > > Agreed. I certainly don't want to sound ungrateful, and I fear that > might be the impression I'm giving. I'd just like to see it's few warts > improved upon. Speaking of warts, that was a pretty stupid typo. The possessive "its" has no apostrophe. -- Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ] "A script is what you give the actors. A program is what you give the audience." - Larry Wall -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
