On Dec 9, 1997, at 00:59, Carl Mummert wrote:
> Assuming no Sender line, or Sender = From, I beleive that the following
> mapping is compliant with the standard:
>
> >From -> Sender (Sender is omitted if
> it is the same as From,
> but it's not, anymore)
>
Tyson Dowd wrote:
> As an aside, when munging reply-tos, if there is an existing reply to,
> why not set the From: to that address.
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Becomes:
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Hi,
This is truly grotesque ;-), but if this is done, I would
withdraw my objections to reply-to munging, as the authors
information is always preserved.
__
( reply-to == "debian-foo..." ? noop :
(From == Sender ||
On Tue, Dec 09, 1997 at 01:05:19PM +1100, Tyson Dowd wrote:
cm >> Kai> If you can't get your mailer to reply to From: when you want to,
cm >> Kai> complain to it's programmer - it's broken.
cm >> I thought that is the author sets reply-to, then that should
cm >> be used for replies, and not fro
On 08-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kai> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in
> Kai> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having it
> >> munge
On Dec 4, 1997, at 23:55, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution; we
> are just pandering to broken software (decent software, like gnus,
> allows on to set mailing list parameters [look for to-address] such
> that group replies go only to t
On Dec 5, 1997, at 15:49, Tyson Dowd wrote:
> On 02-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I
> > hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.ht
On Dec 6, 1997, at 16:56, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution;
>
> I agree.
>
> > The people with sad mail software and lazy fingers are
> > penalizing the people with low bandwidth. Don't break
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
> > non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which easily leads (for me) to actually missing them - because of
> > duplicate suppression, they do not show up where they are expected (with
> >
Hi,
>>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in
Kai> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having it
>> munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken*
>> behaviour. Why should
On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which easily leads (for me) to actually missing them - because of
> duplicate suppression, they do not show up where they are expected (with
> the mailing list).
One of the reasons I *don't* use duplicate supression (I leave
On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There don't seem to be many that match your definition of "decent".
> (Incidentally, that's part of why I'm still thinking about writing my
> own.)
>
> Maybe we should make a list. You seem to like GNUS; obviously, that's no
On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
> non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a very
> small number of mail clients a "solution".
"Reply-to-all" + editing is ava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tyson Dowd) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even the mail RFC (I forget the
> number) suggests using Reply-Tos for mailing lists.
You forgot because it's not true. No such thing in any of RFC 821/822/
1123.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 04.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution; we
That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a very
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having
> it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken*
> behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing
> because some m
On 06-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tyson> Considering most mailing lists seem to be configured to reject
> Tyson> email that isn't "From" the person on the list, I find this is
> Tyson> a pretty feeble argument. But it's the strongest argument for
> Tyson> not munging
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution;
I agree.
> The people with sad mail software and lazy fingers are
> penalizing the people with low bandwidth. Don't break conforming
> software to cater to broken software.
Are we sure that
Hi,
>>"Tyson" == Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMHO overriding an existing Reply-To is a bad idea.
Tyson> I think it's bad that mailers don't handle mailing lists
Tyson> well. When that support is common, there will be little reason
Tyson> for munging Reply-To. But now, it solves some
On 05-Dec-1997, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Sorry, this came out sounding harsher than it was supposed to. I just
> > think that there are some problems that could really do with solving,
> > and Reply-To: would do it at a relatively small cost.
>
> Is it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Sorry, this came out sounding harsher than it was supposed to. I just
> think that there are some problems that could really do with solving,
> and Reply-To: would do it at a relatively small cost.
Is it really so hard to use ``Reply All'' and then cut out all the Cc: ex
Hi,
Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution; we
are just pandering to broken software (decent software, like gnus,
allows on to set mailing list parameters [look for to-address] such
that group replies go only to the list). Or else one can just delete
additional addre
On 05-Dec-1997, Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like it to be fixed, but it seems that there are a few people who
> have strong opinions on the matter, but are not prepared to discuss or
> fix the problems it causes.
Sorry, this came out sounding harsher than it was supposed to. I j
On 02-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I
> hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Which, as we have discussed before on thi
Hi,
No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I
hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
manoj
--
"Can you imagine what it would be like if there had been ``look and
feel'' lawsuits over
Here I go again...
I raised the question some time ago regarding the annoying duplicate
messages I'm getting from all Debian lists; sometimes I'll get the
same message up to five times. Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> suggested
several solutions, none of which where satisfying to me, because they
w
27 matches
Mail list logo
