[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reverting question

Gregory Leblanc 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...
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

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
make sense.

> 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 mailing list