On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 03:53:25PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, sorry about that; I try to remember to use "list-reply" instead > > of "group-reply" on Debian MLs, but I often forget. This matter would > > be so much simpler if everyone's MUA would support and set > > Mail-Followup-To. Alas, this seems not to be happening at any pace > > where it can happen in my lifetime. > > That's probably because Mail-Followup-To is not the solution.
you're a bit tiredsome with that. List-Post does not helps you to specify that you want to be set as a Cc: or not when someones answers to a mail. the usual rule on lists I'm on, is that when M-F-T is set, it's what should be used. Though, when none is set, you should assume the guy who you are answering to is not subscribed, and politeness ask you to set the Cc: I know the rfc2369, and I can assure you no List-* header can offer an answer to the previous problem. And that's the sole purpose of the M-F-T header. Also note that the rfc ask to enable "reply to lists" functions, and not to force it, and mutt does that as it offers you group-reply (known as reply-to-all in other softwares) or list-reply. The point is Lionel did not used the correct one here. M-F-T is just a way to fix bad uses of group-replies where a list-reply should be used, and there is no harm in adding a harmless header that can help a lot of MUAs. or please strip your signature, it costs many more octets than a M-F-T. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp8w2CBySBxv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
