> Reply-To is evil for other reasons, eg autoreply loops; it is just
> blind luck that that particular disaster hasn't bitten us yet.
> Without the Reply-To header, "reply" lets you talk to the author,
> and "reply all" lets you talk to the list; I don't see why that
> is a problem, unless th
At 08:41 AM 1/3/01, Chris Dillon wrote:
>[...] I've set up mail filters with procmail to sort mail from individual
>lists into their own folders. When someone sends a message that goes to
>both the list AND to myself, then I get one message in my inbox, and the
>other message in the list folde
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, James ''Wez'' Weatherall wrote:
> > Without the Reply-To header, "reply" lets you talk to the author,
> > and "reply all" lets you talk to the list; I don't see why that
> > is a problem, unless there are user on the list that use MUAs
> > without a "reply all" command.
>
> U
Is this a problem ?
-Original Message-
Using Reply-to-all in this way will cause the list _and_ the sender to
receive the email. If the sender is on the list then they receive two
copies. If a conversation on the list continues for a while and has
multiple correspondents, they will all
> Without the Reply-To header, "reply" lets you talk to the author,
> and "reply all" lets you talk to the list; I don't see why that
> is a problem, unless there are user on the list that use MUAs
> without a "reply all" command.
Using Reply-to-all in this way will cause the list _and_ the sende
I haven't bothered to look into it but the vnc-list mail format confuses MS
outlook. It doesn't see the original sender unless you jump through some
special hoops. The result is that is very hard for an Outlook user (at least
the flavor used at my site) to reply directly to the sender instead of t
