On Feb 19 1999, Rok Papez wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:30:03 -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > No. IMO, it's not as easy as you want to make it, because
> >this is a misuse of the Reply-To field. As far as I know, messages
> >compliant with the RFCs can't have two Reply-To fields (which one
> >would the MUA choose, anyway?).
>
> Who is talking about two "Reply-To:" fields ????
Anybody who cogitates the possibility of having Reply-To
fields pointing to user addresses or mailing list addresses should, at
one point or another, think about this issue to avoid using two
Reply-To fields.
The problem that I reported in my message had to do with the
fact that I had to set up another Reply-To field upon request of my
users. Since an e-mail can't have two Reply-To fields (as far as I
know -- and that was mentioned in my original message), the original
one set up by the user has to be removed/invalidated.
> There is only one, the one that mailin lists creates or the
> original-one that is preserved by the mailing list.
> Please read the post carefuly before replying; and if I wasn't
> clear enough ask me to clearify it.
Yes, I understood that (I'm not an idiot, as you may be
implying). But realize that the suggestion you so firmly defend is not
a complete solution to the problem.
What should be done when the sender wants his/her personal
replies back to a different address *BUT* doesn't want to receive all
replies to his/her post personally, that is, the poster still wants to
keep the discussion on the list? Add another Reply-To field to the
message?
(...)
> If I post *with* "Reply-To:" field already set, then mailinglist does
> *not* add a "Reply-To:" field.
And then some people will come to the list and say:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
> Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> This way it is solved.
No, it's not solved.
BTW, please don't be so arrogant to ask others "Please read
the post carefuly before replying" [sic]. You win nothing with this
attitude.
> >damn Reply-To field myself upon request of my users. Are there any
> >ports of Mutt to the Windows world so that I can recommend that for my
> >users?
>
> Mutt is very unintuitive (PINE *is* intuitive), I tried it, didn't
> like it. I wish that PINE had as many features as mutt has, tho.
> I prefer PINE and PMMail over anything else.
Pff... I used to use Pine for 4 years until last week, when I
decided to switch over to Mutt. I must say that you apparently didn't
use Mutt enough to talk about its intuitiveness, for it can have a
behavior pretty similar to Pine's: you can set up the keyboard
bindings so that the user won't notice the change.
And you can even obtain ready-made system-wide configuration
files for your system such that Mutt emulates Pine. So, it's as
intuitive as Pine. BTW, if some software is intuitive or not is, after
all, subjective and and depends on previous experience of the user. If
a user used Mutt first, then it would be more intuitive than Pine.
Anyway, that was not my point. I wasn't judging if
such-and-such software is intuitive. I was just asking if people knew
some software smart enough to handle e-mails to mailing lists. I just
happened to ask (in jest) if Mutt had any port for Windows, but any
other software with such feature will do.
[]s, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Undergrad. Computer Science Student - "Windows? Linux and X!"
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/opeth/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
