[Mailman-Users] Reply-To revisited
Jost.Krieger+mailman at rub.de
Thu Jun 16 16:23:54 CEST 2005
No, I don't want to convert you to my opinion of Reply-To handling :-)
I think Mailmans attitude is correct, everyone should be able to implement his
own idea ...
Only I found it not flexible enough.
Our Problem: We have an announcement list for campus network admnistrators and
an associated discussion list (for *interested* network administrators).
Usually, answers are directed to the discussion list and everyone is happy.
But sometimes, there are announcements like "We need 20 people who also buy
this to get a good price. If you would like to buy, answer me."
The answers obviously shouldn't go to the list. Network adminstrators aren't
any better at hand editing To: fields than anybody else. If you opt for not
stripping the original Reply-To: header, you will get the answers to the sender
*and* the list, also not what you want.
My idea would be to restructure the options in the following way:
# 0 - Reply-To: no address
# 1 - Reply-To: back to the list
# 2 - Reply-To: to an explicit value (reply_to_address)
# 3 - Reply-To: to sender of mail
# 0 - merge
# 1 - override
# 2 - respect
For our case, I'd use values of "0" and "2".
I hope the meaning of "respect", "override" and "merge" is clear ...
| Jost.Krieger+sig at ruhr-uni-bochum.de Please help stamp out spam! |
| Postmaster, JAPH, resident answer machine at RUB Comp. Center |
| Sincere words are not sweet, sweet words are not sincere. |
| Lao Tse, Tao Te King 81 |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 185 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20050616/82e6a112/attachment.pgp
More information about the Mailman-Users