[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: "reply all" etiquette: reply-all vs. reply'ing to l

From: Nikolai Weibull
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: "reply all" etiquette: reply-all vs. reply'ing to list
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:58:06 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

* Miles Bader <address@hidden> [Sep 28, 2004 09:50]:
> > > You (and jblack) should add a "Mail-Followup-To:" header, which
> > > many mailers will respect when doing "reply-to-all".  E.g.:

> > >    Mail-Followup-To: address@hidden

> > I thought that Mail-Followup-To wasn't part of any "standard" yet

> It's not as far as I know, but it's widely implemented, so it's pretty
> much a de-facto standard these days, especially among the more clueful
> MUAs out there like Gnus and Mutt (which I'm sure we all use :-).

Yep.  Btw, guess where this mail wound up?  That's right, straight in my
 >-box, not in =lists.gnu-arch-users ;-).

> > and was frowned upon by many.

> I think this is not true.  It's no doubt frowned upon by _some_, but
> largely it seems to be well-liked by the clueful.


> > Why does this list seem to add tabs in the subject line?  I'm
> > guessing this is due to some kind of mailing list header munging for
> > wrapping long header lines gone bad?
> I guess because of the added "[gnu-arch-users] " tag (which I hate,
> but many people seem to love [presumably those who put all their mail
> in one huge folder]).

Yes, it's a really strange way of categorising email, that's for sure.
I strip it with .procmail:


:0 fw
* $^Subject: *(R[Ee]: )+\[(${MAILINGLISTTAGS})\] \/.*
| formail -bfI "Subject: Re: $MATCH"

:0 fw
* $^Subject: *\[(${MAILINGLISTTAGS})\] \/.*
| formail -bfI "Subject: $MATCH"


::: name: Nikolai Weibull    :: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka :::
::: born: Chicago, IL USA    :: loc atm: Gothenburg, Sweden    :::
::: page:  :: fun atm: gf,lps,ruby,lisp,war3 :::

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]