[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
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:18:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:59:05PM +0300, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Andrew> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:06:08AM -0500, Mark A. Flacy wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> Andrew>
> Andrew> How do you tell, from the List-* headers, whether or not you are
> Andrew> subscribed to the mailing list?
> >>
> >> Why are you attempting to reply-to-list when you don't belong to the
> list?
>
> Andrew> Because I want to send something to the list?
>
> Andrew> Really, posting without being subscribed isn't all that uncommon.
> In
> Andrew> that case, you want to be Cc:ed on followups, and you want to
> indicate
> Andrew> this desire to other MUAs.
>
> Where did you get List-* from in the first place ?
Presumably somebody bounced me a copy. But this isn't directly
relevant. Consider what the people who receive my mail, via the list,
will receive, and what their clients will do if they ignore M-F-T and
only follow List-*.
In fact, expand my original question: How do you tell, from the List-*
headers, whether the *sender* is subscribed to the mailing list?
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
pgpeYBZLdQyDb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- 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, MJ Ray, 2003/08/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Stig Brautaset, 2003/08/23
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/26
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging,
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/26
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Miles Bader, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Robert Collins, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Miles Bader, 2003/08/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Specifying protocols [was: the dangers of no reply-to munging], Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/08/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Federico Di Gregorio, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging, Jonathan Walther, 2003/08/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, Andrew Suffield, 2003/08/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update, MJ Ray, 2003/08/25