----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Wolff III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: qmail list reply-to
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:33:34PM -0400,
> Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Charles McLagan writes:
> > > 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?
> >
> > No. Reply-to-Recipient is necessary and sufficient.
>
> And what if the sender isn't on the list?
>
Closed list. No senders who aren't subscribers. List is also
private, should not be going out to non-sibscribers.
Let's consider the subject dead, since the replies I'm getting are
ones that generally fall into the 'religious' domain and not ones
that actually address the problem I'm trying to solve, which has
nothing to do with public lists. I have a specific list, with specific
users who use currently available MUAs, and a specific problem.
