Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:38:00
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] reply-to munging by Jason Wever
maillog: 14/04/2005-14:10:34(-0600): Jason Wever types
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > > Reply-to-All is evil. You should be using Reply-to-List. I know that I > > sure don't need to get the same email both on and off-list. Off-list > > emails should be reserved only for when you explicitly do not want to > > send to the list and only to the original email's author. > > And just how many mail clients support reply-to-list (which in and of > itself doesn't have well defined standards and is not adhered to in any > specific way by the myriads of mailing list software packages out there)? > Not very many last I checked.
"L" seems to work fine great in mutt. I do not have the word "gentoo" mentioned in my muttrc, but it properly got the address from the "List-Post" header. I also tried it on a "List-Post:<mailto:gentoo-dev@g.o>" posting (that was CCed to @lists) and it was properly addressed to gentoo-dev@g.o. Congratulations. There is at least one properly behaving mail client. It will be known how proper if it sets the Mail-FollowUp-To: header on this mail.
> Best for now to deal with whether you want Reply-To to be altered or use > Reply-To all.
I don't really care, but out of principle -- don't touch the header is my vote. -- \ Georgi Georgiev \ Apples have meant trouble since eden. -- \ / chutz@×××.net / MaDsen Wikholm, mwikholm@×××××××.fi / \ +81(90)2877-8845 \ \