Hi,
* David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-29 14:19]:
>...and then Thorsten Haude said...
>Hello! BTW, I only just noticed your clever domain name -- cool! :-)
Imagine my frustration when I learned that 'hau.de' was gone.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] would have been even better.
>% * Dairy Wall Limey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-11-29 01:11]:
>% >i don't want to have to start using unique addresses for internal lists
>% >too, but it messes up my organization when list messages get in my inbox
>% >(due to use of 'reply-all').
>If he uses the william+mutt format for lists at his office, then that
>mail can be easily sorted. He doesn't want to have to do that, though,
>so the mail had better be addressed only to the mailing list (and not
>also copied to him, so that he gets two copies, one of which is direct
>to him) -- and that one probably arrives first and gets dropped in his
>mailbox before the other one arrives to be wiped out by his duplicate
>weeding filter (or just to clutter up his inbox).
Yeah, the basic brain-dead-mailer-problem and its reply-to-munging or
group-reply answer. Fortunately, there's Mutt. I use group-reply about
once a year.
I don't know why I didn't get it the first time.
Dairy, you could set the Reply-To header, this is more widely honored
than Mail-Followup-To.
Ah. I guess they would hit group-reply anyway.
Thorsten
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
