Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ...

On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:02:41AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:49:46 +0000,
> Chris Green <chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> >
> > This is a perpetual problem, if people all used the same MUA and
> > (assuming it has the capability) all used the 'reply to list' command
> > to reply to the list everything would be wonderful! :-)
>
> I think using mail-followup-to is better than having people do reply to list.
>
It depends on how the 'reply to list' is implemented surely. With
mutt (the MUA I use) you specify the addresses of known mailing lists
and the 'reply to List' command uses this to detect from the headers
whether the mail is from a list or not and acts accordingly.

> I think the main benefit to having reply-to point to the list is for supporting
> clueless users on lists (who don't seem to understand the difference between
> reply to sender and reply to all) and I don't think we have too many of those
> here.
>
The disadvantage of setting Reply-To: to point to the list for me is
that it would override my specific Reply-To: and thus prevent people
sending replies direct to me if they happened to want to do that. A
message sent to my From: address gets sorted by procmail to a very low
priority mailbox which I may well overlook. (I use a different
address for list subscriptions from the one I use for personal mail)

> People who don't want separate copies of messages should set the
> mail-followup-to header to indicate that preference. This isn't perfect
> since not all mail clients support this and some set up is required to
> make your client aware of the list. It is also possible for mailing list

As I said my MUA does this.

> software to handle this preference for you (by not sending copies to addresses
> on the list that appear in the recipient headers), but I don't know if the
> software in use has that capability.
>

--
Chris Green (chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk)

"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."