[Mailman-Users] Re: [Mailman-Developers] Reverting question
J C Lawrence
claw at kanga.nu
Wed Nov 15 05:50:15 CET 2000
On 15 Nov 2000 12:27:14 +0800
Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc at cu-portland.edu> wrote:
> 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.
This depends on your reasons for reply-to munging. For instance,
enforcing reply-to overwriting removes the ability of a poster to
control where followup discussion of a post which is posted to
multiple reply-to setting lists will occur. Is this always useful?
Certainly not. Is it ever sometimes useful? Certainly, especially
if given an email proficient userbase (I've seen this technique used
to good effect in engineering depts).
Which is better? Depends on your needs.
Which should Mailman default to? Probably overwriting reply-to is
the better (more common/popular) choice.
Is there an advantage to offering yet another config option? I'd
J C Lawrence Home: claw at kanga.nu
---------(*) Other: coder at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Keys etc: finger claw at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
More information about the Mailman-Users