| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:54:35AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 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 not |
| 7 |
> 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 disabled |
| 9 |
> again? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The reply-to was set in almost all mailing lists with the old server. During |
| 12 |
the migration I kept the Reply-To for all lists, I didn't notice that |
| 13 |
gentoo-dev wasn't using it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I agree that reply-to munging is a bad idea and I tried removing it from |
| 16 |
gentoo-user receiving a lot of flames because of that, see also this bug for |
| 17 |
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 without |
| 23 |
it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Andrea Barisani <lcars@g.o> .*. |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Developer V |
| 31 |
( ) |
| 32 |
GPG-Key 0x864C9B9E http://dev.gentoo.org/~lcars/pubkey.asc ( ) |
| 33 |
0A76 074A 02CD E989 CE7F AC3F DA47 578E 864C 9B9E ^^_^^ |
| 34 |
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives