Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> When I notice that a list is broken (RFC 2822 says that
>> reply-to is for the *author* of the message; anyone else setting it is
>> doing so in violation of the RFC, and hence broken, no matter how
>> useful it may be),
> Since whe
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>
>
>>When I notice that a list is broken (RFC 2822 says that
>>reply-to is for the *author* of the message; anyone else setting it is
>>doing so in violation of the RFC, and hence broken, no matter how
>>useful it may be),
>
>
> Since when did obeyin
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Is that really the desired behaviour? IMO the least you can do if you're
>>searching for help is subscribing to the mailing list on which you're
>>looking for help. Me and many others don't like to receive replies
>>directly instea
Mike Meyer wrote:
> When I notice that a list is broken (RFC 2822 says that
> reply-to is for the *author* of the message; anyone else setting it is
> doing so in violation of the RFC, and hence broken, no matter how
> useful it may be),
Since when did obeying the RFC become important in and
of
On Oct 3, 2005, at 7:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:On Monday 03 October 2005 11:50, Roel Schroeven wrote: Peter Decker wrote:Unfortunately AFAIK most of the popular mail clients don't offer a'Reply to list' button. Even mutt only offers that functionality of you Of course if you have kmail it has
On Monday 03 October 2005 11:50, Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Peter Decker wrote:
> Unfortunately AFAIK most of the popular mail clients don't offer a
> 'Reply to list' button. Even mutt only offers that functionality of you
Of course if you have kmail it has full list support and allows you to do
tha
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is that really the desired behaviour? IMO the least you can do if you're
> searching for help is subscribing to the mailing list on which you're
> looking for help. Me and many others don't like to receive replies
> directly instead of via the mailing li
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>
>>Peter Decker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Setting the default Reply-To: to the list means that 'Reply' sends
>>>just to the list (the desired behavior most of the time), and 'Reply
>>>to all' sends 2 copies.
>>
>>
>>No, it sends one copy to the
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Peter Decker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Setting the default Reply-To: to the list means that 'Reply' sends
>>just to the list (the desired behavior most of the time), and 'Reply
>>to all' sends 2 copies.
>
>
> No, it sends one copy to the list, and one copy to the origin
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Peter Decker wrote:
>>
>>>Setting the default Reply-To: to the list means that 'Reply' sends
>>>just to the list (the desired behavior most of the time), and 'Reply
>>>to all' sends 2 copies.
>>
>>The thing is: Reply-to has legitim
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Decker wrote:
>> Setting the default Reply-To: to the list means that 'Reply' sends
>> just to the list (the desired behavior most of the time), and 'Reply
>> to all' sends 2 copies.
> The thing is: Reply-to has legitimate uses. I don't really unde
Peter Decker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Setting the default Reply-To: to the list means that 'Reply' sends
> just to the list (the desired behavior most of the time), and 'Reply
> to all' sends 2 copies.
No, it sends one copy to the list, and one copy to the original
author. This is the behavio
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Peter Decker wrote:
>
>>On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>On lists like this, where everyone benefits by sharing information, it
>>seems pretty lame to hide behind purist arguments about Reply-To:
>>headers. The default behavior should be the one mo
Peter Decker wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>The default of this list is not to make conversations private; in fact
>>the list doesn't have any default. It's you who chooses to send replies
>>to the original author, to the list, or both, by choosing which butt
On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The default of this list is not to make conversations private; in fact
> the list doesn't have any default. It's you who chooses to send replies
> to the original author, to the list, or both, by choosing which button
> to press in your mail
Peter Decker wrote:
> On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Indeed, and that's by design: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
>
> Of course, that's only one side of the argument:
>
> http://www.blackgate.net/consulting/reply-to_munging_useful.html
>
> On lis
On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, and that's by design: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Of course, that's only one side of the argument:
http://www.blackgate.net/consulting/reply-to_munging_useful.html
On lists like this, where everyone benefits by s
Richie Hindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew]
> > Is it just me, or does python-list@python.org not send with a
> > Reply-To header?
>
> It's not just you. I don't get one either.
Excellent! That leaves the Reply-To field free for its intended use:
to give the return address for an individ
Richie Hindle wrote:
> [Andrew]
>
>>Is it just me, or does python-list@python.org not send with a Reply-
>>To header?
>
>
> It's not just you. I don't get one either.
Indeed, and that's by design: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
--
If I have been able to see further, it was o
[Andrew]
> Is it just me, or does python-list@python.org not send with a Reply-
> To header?
It's not just you. I don't get one either.
--
Richie Hindle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
20 matches
Mail list logo
