On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:45:33 +0200 Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote:
> Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > > The only sane and foolproof method is to have mailman set the Reply-To > > field to the list address. This is a fantastically appropriate moment > > to do it. > > > > > If you want to bring THAT discussion up, then at the very least address > the stated shortcomings of your proposed setting. As long as you ignore > those, you are talking, but not listening (in other words, this isn't a > discussion). > > They are listed at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, but > the ones I mostly want answered are these two: > > * With reply to set to the list, the failure mode is catastrophic, > while with it not, the failure mode merely means having to resend > a message. > * Sending a private message with reply to list is much much much > more difficult than sending a public message without it. > > Shachar > That is true, setting reply-to to point to the list is not a good solution. The proper solution is to set the list header so that modern MUA can use the reply to list button. Reply-to should reply to sender, reply-to-list should reply to list. Happily mailman does this while the previous setting didn't which caused me to send a lot of private messages by mistake at the time. At the moment I don't see that there is anything to fix as all that needed fixing was fixed by the move to mailman. > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-il mailing list > Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il > http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il > _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
