| 1 |
On Thursday 14 April 2005 11:01, Andrea Barisani wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hi all, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > It appears that recently the mailing list server has enabled reply to |
| 6 |
> > munging. From previous discussions (about 2 years ago) it was decided |
| 7 |
> > not to do this reply to munging. What I want to ask is do we want to |
| 8 |
> > reconsider this decision, or do we want the reply-to munging be |
| 9 |
> > disabled again? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The reply-to was set in almost all mailing lists with the old server. |
| 12 |
> During the migration I kept the Reply-To for all lists, I didn't notice |
| 13 |
> that gentoo-dev wasn't using it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I agree that reply-to munging is a bad idea and I tried removing it |
| 16 |
> from gentoo-user receiving a lot of flames because of that, see also |
| 17 |
> this bug for something related about this topic: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82887 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving |
| 22 |
> user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal |
| 23 |
> without it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It also changed for the many smaller lists like -core, -nfp, -trustees, |
| 26 |
(basically all). Perhaps it could be changed such that only -user has the |
| 27 |
munging. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Paul |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 33 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 34 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 35 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives