< said:
> Curious, why is the reply field in the email header not set
> to the originating mailing list?
Because that would be an incredibly obnoxious (I would even say
asinine) thing to do. If I want to make a reply to the list, I'll
make a reply to the list. If I don't, I won't. Readers of
to -current anymore.
agreed.
> b.) I think it's useful. When someone responds to me on the
> list, I get a copy in my main mailbox and in the mailbox
> where I keep messages for that list.
>
this has been discussed in depth on the mailing lists.
search for it and you&#x
> Thus spake Amancio Hasty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > it easier to reply to postings to the mailing lists so people don't
> > get multiple copies of the same message. I don't have such
> > problem because I have a mail filter which delete duplicate
> > messages.
>
> Reply-To: also destroys priva
Thus spake Amancio Hasty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> it easier to reply to postings to the mailing lists so people don't
> get multiple copies of the same message. I don't have such
> problem because I have a mail filter which delete duplicate
> messages.
Reply-To: also destroys private Reply-To:'s.
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999, Amancio Hasty wrote:
> Curious, why is the reply field in the email header not set
> to the originating mailing list? Just thought that it will make
> it easier to reply to postings to the mailing lists so people don't
> get multiple copies of the same message. I don't have s
Curious, why is the reply field in the email header not set
to the originating mailing list? Just thought that it will make
it easier to reply to postings to the mailing lists so people don't
get multiple copies of the same message. I don't have such
problem because I have a mail filter which del
