[Nottingham] Linux

[Simon Huggins]

On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 05:07:38PM +0100, Tom Allender wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:47, Robert Postill wrote:
> > Doh!  I can't believe I posted to the list.
> > Robert.
> Hmm, a case of "Reply-To: Munging Considered Harmful":
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html ?

That reminds me.  I really should write a rant about how Reply-To:
threads are a pointless waste of space and everyone should use a mailer
that let's *them* do what they want.

i.e. Both sets of people are right in that what they want is what should
happen and they should change to a mailer that allows /them/ to get
their preferred behaviour on any list.

FWIW I use mutt's ignore_list_reply_to so that when Reply-To: is set to
the To: address it'll ignore it.  My reply function will go to the From:
address, my list reply function will go to the list.  And I'm happy.  I
don't notice where reply-to is set now unless it's on non-list mail.

People can easily obtain the other effect with procmail and formail
adding a Reply-To: header.  I could do this with this list too to
remove the Reply-To: but I'm lazy and would rather set one option than
have a list of lists in two places.

-- 
Simon Huggins  \ "But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the
                \ roads..." - Python
http://www.earth.li/~huggie/                                htag.pl 0.0.22