Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] [admin] Re: Stopping Reply-to munging
From: Larry Troxler (lt_AT_westnet.com)
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 04:28:21 EET
On Sunday 01 February 2004 20:51, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
> Frank Barknecht wrote:
> > Hallo,
> >
> > Rob hat gesagt: // Rob wrote:
> >>Ron's contrite response to my original flame suggests to me that
> >>he got bit by the infamous "reply-to: set to mailing list"
> >>behavior so many have complained about.
> >
> > I must have missed this complains, but until now I also missed, that
> > the Reply-to is indeed munged. As this is considered bad practice for
> > a lot of reasons
>
> as well as good practice for about the same number of reasons
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
> > (search google for "reply-to munging harmful")
>
> search google for "reply-to munging considered useful" :-D
>
No thanks, don't have the time...
C'mon guys - get a clue - is it really that easy to accidently post a message
to a public mailing list?
Yes, reply-to should go to the list - but it's also quite patently obvious
when a given message is from a mailing list - normally the fact that you get
two copies would be a clue --- oh never mind. I guess everyone's
configuration is different...
Please people, if you have the energy to be outraged about some perceived
injustice, then you should have the energy to double-check your recipient
list.
This is really a non-problem.
Larry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 04:34:36 EET