On 14 Nov 2000, at 0:16, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

"PB" == Phil Barnett <midnight@the-oasis.net> writes:

PB> I upgraded from 2.0b6 from 2.0rc2 Friday night. A person wrote
PB> me and said the replyto: is no longer pointed to the list. I
PB> checked several messages and they were, but some were not. Any
PB> message I send to the list has a replyto of myself instead of
PB> to the list.

Please remember that if the original message has a Reply-To: already, Mailman will not overwrite that, even if "explicit reply-to" is set. So, did the original mesasge have a Reply-To already?

I just tested this using rc2. With reply_goes_to_list set to "explicit address" and reply_to_address set to some non-blank value, any message without a Reply-To: gets one set to that value. Any message that already has a Reply-To: set is unchanged. That's expected behavior (i.e. works for me!)

Expected behavour for whom? For all the users on my lists, it has them screaming. They want to know why Mailman is broken after the upgrade.

2.0b6 did not exhibit this behaviour. How can I make 2.0rc2 work like b6 did?

I think it's rather impossible to get all list users on the planet to remove their replyto so they can reply to the list on a list that replyto list is set. Expecially so since setting replyto is generally a global setting in most MUA's.

Why was this changed? Is there a way to make Mailman to have this be selectable behaviour for it to work both ways?

Not being able to force replyto to the list is broken behaviour in my users eyes, and, they are the ones who really count. My open source developers list is ready to switch back to egroups over this.

That can't be good news.

-- Phil Barnett mailto:midnight@the-oasis.net WWW http://www.the-oasis.net/ FTP Site ftp://ftp.the-oasis.net