-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 24 January 2003 13:16, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > Vadim Vygonets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mailing lists should NOT add a Reply-To: header to its mail. > > This is tangential to this thread, but I think that it is a good idea > to set Reply-To to the list's address. Many (most?) mailing lists > do. It is actually a bit annoying in linux-il that a "reply" goes to > the sender, not to the list. After all, most of the times I wish to > reply to the list. What I do is hit "followup" (a.k.a. "wide reply"), > which sends mail to both the original sender and to the list > (e.g. this message will be sent to Vadik and to linux-il; a simple > "reply" would go to Vadik only). After several people join the thread > it becomes interesting. It is also Vadik's responsibility now to deal > with duplicates. His fault, too - see the cited sentence. ;-) > > Of course, posters can set Reply-To to the list's address (I do, a > good netizen that I am), but not many will do, and not all MUAs let > you do that easily.
I don't know too much about email format/headers, but if we had some List-* (List-post in particular I suppose) headers added to all posts, people could do a reply-to-list. At least kmail supports it. BTW in kmail you can also define a list address per mail folder, and then you get the reply-to-list functionality even without the List-* headers. That's what I do with linux-il. But, is there a reason not to add the List headers on the server side? - -- Dan Armak Matan, Israel Public GPG key: http://www.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+MSfgUI2RQ41fiVERAo7KAJ9m+Vbqh9aBE8hl/aFcfBzHqN+f6QCfSy/d L6gJGa4uLc/4brtf8tWf7CI= =huA3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ================================================================To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
