maxxx at anime-h
Oct 13, 2003, 1:02 PM
Post #10 of 13
(1773 views)
Permalink
|
On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 10:20 -0400 (while it was 16:20 where
I live), you scribbled the following text:
> Damn, sorry, I meant to send that privately to MaXxX.
But I didn't have a Reply-To: header in the message you replied to, so
I don't know why in the world you replied erroneously to the list :)
Meanwhile, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html .
My MUA, The Bat, has an option to "reply to sender". Some MUAs have
Reply only to author and Group Reply for, well, group replies - and
some have Reply to the reply-to: field and Reply to Author to the
from: field. I see no reason why a particular style of mailers should
be officially preferred over another.
Now, as I would be fairly surprised to find a munged Reply-To: header
on an announcement-style list, or even a matchmaking list, where
hardly anybody replies publicly - what I expected here was encouraging
the replying to the list, so that, as the subscribers saw the original
question, they'll also see the solutions offered. I'l pretty sick of
some mailing lists where someone asks "How can I do this and that",
then there's three days of silence, and finally a response by the
asker himself, "Thank you John Doe, your solution worked". I'd figure
that a mailing list about the world's second most popular MTA would
encourage sharing knowledge, instead of encouraging keeping it private
("answer to the list only if you feel a special need to"). But, well,
go figure. It's way offtopic now, anyway, so if someone tells me to
shut up, I'll do.
Oh, speaking of mailing list setup correctness - what about fields
such as List-Id:, List-Unsubscribe:, List-Post:, List-Help:,
List-Subscribe:, Sender:, and Errors-To: ? Why aren't they set up
either? :)
--
|\ /| \~~~/ \~~~/
| \/ | /\ > < \~/ > < ICQ# 3146019
|____| /__\ /___\ /_\ /___\ IQ# 3.14159
A lost inch of gold may be found; a lost inch of time, never.
|
