Reply-To: field again !!! (was Re: [WBEL-devel] patchs for missing rpms)

[donavan nelson]

> > how many address will appear in the To: and CC: fields.
> 
>   Please, no.  This has been discussed here before.   There is a
> standard for this and I'd rather see list members adjust to using the

Standard for what?  Which RFC?  If my mail reading agent is really doing
something wrong, I'd like to know.  I can file a bug report and it will get
fixed fast.

> proper reply command (ctrl-L or Actions->Reply to List in evolution, 
> for example).  Mistakes happen, and yours was an honest mistake.  A 

I don't have a reply-to-list button.

> polite "please use the reply-to-list feature of your mailer" is all 
> it takes.  Munging Reply-To headers can result in *much* more 

My mailer (MTA) doesn't deal with Reply-To or reply-to-list headers.  It's the
mail reading apps problem.   And mine see be just a bit 2002ish.  But then
people shouldn't be sending stuff out with addresses they don't want
publically exposed.  It's their problem to keep internal mail adresses
internal or not have their system so wide open that they accept mail destain
for internal servers.

> embarrassing situations (and in some cases, though probably not this 
> list, liability) when you hit your reply button and forget that it's 
> going to go to the entire list instead of just the one user you want 
> to reply to exclusively.

I said it one already, I'm too lazy to demangle all the names in the headers.

How is in this header?
--
Donavan Nelson
donavan@whiteboxlinux.net
http://whiteboxlinux.net