Because, just like with this email, I hit "reply all" and
Microsoft Outlook puts your address and the list address
into the To: field.
Netscape puts your address in To: and the list in Cc: -
same problem.
And it's annoying to get duplicate messages....
Now, one can trash Microsoft, or Netscape, or whoever
makes the MUA, but the bottom line is, this is how they
work and this is how 99% of users would use them even
if there were a reply-to-recipient choice.
So the question is: is there a sensible (or kludgey, hack,
yet sufficient) way to cope with it today?
ccm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to
> Neil Blakey-Milner writes:
> > On Sat 2000-10-07 (15:41), Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > > > Your MUA needs a "Reply to Recipient" command.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, he needs:
> > > >
> > > > ,----[ Gnus manual ]
> > > > | `broken-reply-to'
> > > > | Elements like `(broken-reply-to . t)' signals that
`Reply-To'
> > > > | headers in this group are to be ignored. This can be
useful if
> > > > | you're reading a mailing list group where the listserv has
inserted
> > > > | `Reply-To' headers that point back to the listserv itself.
This is
> > > > | broken behavior. So there!
> > > > `----
> > >
> > > No, actually he needs a "Reply to Recipient" command. Think about
it.
> >
> > I'll bite. What am I missing as to how the MUA knows which people are
> > on the list, and which people aren't on the list, out of the people in
> > the To and Cc lines?
>
> Why would there ever be anybody on the list who is also in the
> recipient list?
>
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | A hate crime
makes
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | it illegal to think
certain
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | thoughts. The crime is
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | itself already a crime.
>
