Re: [LAU] Reply to

On 08/10/2011 08:29 AM, Gwenhwyfaer wrote:

>> Reply-to-all gets the original senders address from where?
>
> Same place as reply-to gets it, I should imagine. (I can't shake the
> feeling that you didn't think this question through.)

I meant in the case reply-to-munging happens, but oh please forgive me
for asking a question without thinking about it all that long.

>> Oh, and receiving mail with both a list and my address in recipients as
>> result of a reply-to-all sucks, as it screws up filtering.
>
> Oh. So my broken client is a problem that mustn't be worked around in
> order to force a change, but your broken client is something that must
> always be catered for by everyone else? There's a word for that kind
> of thinking.

If there are no list fields left in the header as is the case in your
email I'm replying to, a filter that works with any of those fields
can't work. Not a broken client, but broken processing beforehand.

> On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't expect logic from someone who
> attacks the one bit of a critical email which is basically in
> agreement with them...

You are needlessly aggressive and are getting personal.

-- 
Thorsten Wilms
thorwil's design for free software:
http://thorwil.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user