On 20 Jan 2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
> Well hang on.. surely it's legal protocol-wise for witchy to put the
> reply-to field in the header for email that he sends, even though the
> from: field is also present and valid?
Legal, sure, but sensible? I hate getting e-mails where the Reply-To is
the same as the From. What's the point of that? Also, it seems to wreak
havoc on a mailing list.
> Isn't it a little quirky for the list software to append to any existing
> reply-to field rather than overwriting it? (which for a mailing list
> might seem more sensible).
Good point...
> (Curiously in Evolution if I reply to witchy's posts it goes to both him
> and the list by default. If I just say "reply to list" then it just goes
> to the list as expected. A feature that works... even though it isn't
> too useful :)
In PINE, when hit the R)eply command, I get:
Include original message in Reply?
...to which I answer 'Y'. Then I get:
Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?
...to which I again answer 'Y'. However, with Witchy's messages, since it
finds two Reply-To addresses, it puts both in the To: address.
Anyway, Witchy's config is doing something that is counter to 99% of the
rest of the list. While I appreciate and celebrate non-conformists, in
this case it's like the guy who just smells really bad because he refuses
to use deodorant.
As a favor to Witchy (so he doesn't get my message in both his ClassicCmp
box and his regular Inbox) I always edit out his address (= pain in the
ass). I guess I could just let that be, but I want to be courteous to
Witchy :)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Mon Jan 19 2004 - 19:58:09 GMT