[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reverting question
gleblanc at cu-portland.edu
Wed Nov 15 05:27:14 CET 2000
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 04:57:49PM +1100, Simon Coggins wrote:
> > I have to agree here. Not being able to override the reply-to: fields on
> > lists is a *MAJOr* problem. I've also had this problem with my lists. And I
> > was hoping for a 'fix' but it looks like it's intended behaviour?.
> The irony of this coming back over and over again...
Fine, that's all well and good, munging reply to is harmful. Sometimes
the harm that it causes is less than the harm that it prevents.
> 1) Don't set a reply-to in your lists (see above link)
This is a good policy in most cases, but there ARE some where it doesn't
> 2) If you don't want to take that advise, you certainly shouldn't overwrite
> a users' reply to with the list's
I'm sorry, but this is silly. If you're going to write reply-to headers
via your MLM, you need to write them ALL the time, otherwise you end up
with strange and un-predictable behaviour. Keep the reply-to header
certainly, but if headers are sending mail back to the list, the user's
reply-to really doesn't make much difference, unless you need to send a
private reply. If you're sending a private reply, you can get it out of
the x-reply-to header.
More information about the Mailman-Users