> > But since this is techtalk, and since we seem to be discussing
> > etiquette, is there any real reason why Reply-To is set to the
> > list? There's an article detailing reasons why it can be a bad
> > idea at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> I have read the article at that
Deb Richardson wrote:
> ...
> I would like to know what people think about this.
Sounds good to me.
--
.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://CubicMeterCrystal.com/
"You are the product of a mutational union
of ~640Mbytes of gene
Note: I'm crossposting this to grrltalk, issues, and techtalk because
telsa brings up some important points which could have an effect on all
these lists. Apologies to everyone who gets this message more than
once.
Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> But since this is techtalk, and since we seem to be discu
