| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:11 +0200, Andrea Barisani wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:06:18PM +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: |
| 3 |
> > maillog: 14/04/2005-11:01:19(+0200): Andrea Barisani types |
| 4 |
> > > I'm prefectly happy with removing our reply-to header (and leaving |
| 5 |
> > > user_defined one if any) if the userbase of this ml is happy to deal without |
| 6 |
> > > it. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Are you gonna start a poll on the forums? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Starting a poll on *forums* about a *ml*, no thanks :). Hope you were being |
| 12 |
> sarcastic. I'm open to suggestions other than the "remove the header and let the |
| 13 |
> flames come" option which unfortunately looks like the only one to me and |
| 14 |
> despite being "right" in many regards I fear it will cause the havoc that |
| 15 |
> we've experienced on gentoo-user. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I vote for removing them. As stated in the bug, it is really annoying |
| 18 |
to have to copy and paste the sender's address when you want to reply to |
| 19 |
only them. This applies to -core, too. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Personally, I think they should either be unset by the list software, |
| 22 |
or, if possible, stripped. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 26 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 27 |
Games - Developer |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives