Keith Moore writes:
> Chip Rosenthal writes:
> > My solution is to munge headers to ensure the list name appears in
> > the To: address. This allows people with mailers that support both
> > reply and group-reply functions to work corectly.
> Did you mean the From: address?
No. Both From: and Reply-To: munging are bad news imo.
> (I ask because changing the To: address
> doesn't cause reply-to-sender-only traffic to go to the list, and I'm
> guessing that this is what you mean by "reply" as opposed to "group-reply".)
I'm using the terminology from Elm, although other mailers implement
the functions, possibly under different names. In Elm, a R)eply goes
to the person listed in the From: header, overridden by Reply-To if
present. A G)roup-reply goes to everybody. Thus, by ensuring the
mailing list address is present in the To: header, I cause G)roup-reply
responses go to the list but simple R)eply responses go just to the
Obviously, this won't work with all mail readers, but catering to broken
or ill-equiped software is, in general, a bad idea. Anybody remember
the way uunet used to rewrite nearly everything passing through it?
It helped a handful of sites, and created loads of problems for the
rest of us.
Further, I do not like to penalize people with capable software in
order to serve those without. Sometimes, it's beyond the user's
control, such as an irrepairable system bug, and you need to deal with
it. In this case, I can't see crippling the people who use something
like Elm or mush in order to support those too lazy to use anything
other than binmail for reading.
Chip Rosenthal 512-447-0577 | I'm going out where the lights don't shine so
Unicom Systems Development | bright. When I get back you can treat me like
COM> | a Saturday night. -Jimmie Dale Gilmore