From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Adding Reply-To: <listname> to Lists configuration ... |
Date: | 2004-12-01 14:45:30 |
Message-ID: | 20041201144530.GA22749@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:33:18 +0000,
Chris Green <chris(at)areti(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> 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.
That doesn't work in general since the client can't know which recipients are
actually on the list.
However mutt does utilize mail-followup-to headers when doing group replies
and that works well for replying to lists.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-01 15:05:51 | Re: Newbie question: returning rowtypes from a plpgsql function |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2004-12-01 14:25:23 | Re: [PERFORM] pg_restore taking 4 hours! |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-12-01 14:49:47 | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-12-01 14:23:41 | Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl |