Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 05:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <199608060234 . VAA15742 @ garcon . unicom . com>

On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Chip Rosenthal wrote:

> Jim Osborn writes:
> > Really bad idea to point the Reply-To: at the list.
> 
> Seconded.  I've got a paper that beats this issue to a bloody pulp.
> It's at <http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html>.  Unless
> you are dead set in your ways (pro or con), I'd urge folks to take
> a gander.

I'm not dead set in favor of Reply-To: list-address.  On the other hand,
I've been hosting and or listowning several lists with a few hundred
subscribers each.  All are under listproc with the Reply-To pointing to
the list.  Other than the rare misdirected private reply, I've had no
problems.  I've never seen a loop with listproc.  I will look at you
article on the issue.  

My Compu$erve subscribers have no more problems than any other group of
subscribers (filled mailboxes, new address and similar admistrivia).  My
biggest pains are the bounce-forevers [tm] from the UK.


- murr -



Follow-Ups:
References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: help needed w/ forged mail (attack on list)
From: murr rhame <murr @ vnet . net>
Next: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: james @ sagarmatha . com (James C. Armstrong)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: Chip Rosenthal <chip @ unicom . com>
Next: Re: Reply from Compuserve
From: james @ sagarmatha . com (James C. Armstrong)

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com