[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert upd
From: |
markj |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update |
Date: |
Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:09:23 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:08:53AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Ideally, the list manager would add a `Mail-Followup-To:' header for
> messages send by a person subscribed to the list, which would consist of
> all recipients, but not the sender -- that would make a `followup'
> command do exactly what you want, without sending duplicate messages.
No, MFT is a non-standard brain-damaged header. Ideally the mail client
should notice the List-* headers and offer an appropriate action.
(Yes, I regard the listserv setting Reply-To as brain-damaged too. It would
delete Miles's preferred reply address, for example. It would be odd for a
gnu listserv to obstruct gnu users.)
MJR, rebuilding stuff locally.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Jan Harkes, 2003/08/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Anderson, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jan Harkes, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ethan Benson, 2003/08/20
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Bader, 2003/08/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update,
markj <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Anderson, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Robert Collins, 2003/08/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Miles Bader, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Ganesh Sittampalam, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/23