[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update
|
From: |
Ganesh Sittampalam |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update |
|
Date: |
Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:01:42 +0100 |
On 19 Aug 2003 07:33:27 -0700, Robert Anderson <address@hidden>
wrote:
>I happen to agree with you. Replying to the list and NOT the sender is
>the correct default, IMO. Reply-all followed by deleting the original
>sender is annoying.
Why doesn't mailing list software just let subscribers decide whether they
want the Reply-To header munged on their copies of list posts? It would mean
bulk deliveries had to be done in two groups, but this isn't that big a
deal. Everyone could be happy that way. Probably the default would be to
munge, and those with mailers that support list-reply or whatever could turn
that off.
I guess we do need mailing list software that does this, though...
Ganesh
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tobias C. Rittweiler, 2003/08/19
Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update,
Ganesh Sittampalam <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Tom Lord, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Egan, 2003/08/23