On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:39:36AM -0500, Christian Fandt (cfandt_at_netsync.net) wrote:
>
[someone else wrote:]
> >I personally vote for the old way! I'm on quite a few different ML's and
> >only the DECnet/Linux one does it this way. It's more of a pain to have to
> >get the correct TO: with it set this way that the old way!
The "correct" headers are the ones which the sender of the message put
on his message.
> The URL posted by Philip (liste_at_artware.qc.ca) just previous to this msg (
> FYI: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html and titled '
> ''Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful' ) is clear on making it easy for
> you since you use Elm 2.5. Just hit "r" or "g" depending upon whether you
> intend the msg to be private or to the group.
For those that have noticed a bit of a flaw in their mail program
regarding this issue, I'll take a moment to point out that the MUA
That Sucks Less, 'mutt', offers not only reply and group-reply but
also list-reply. :-)
-Rich
--
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
Sysadmin/Programmer, Instructional and Information Technology Services
Concordia University, Montreal, QC (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich_at_alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------
Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 08:59:53 GMT