[WBEL-users] whitebox reply-to address

[bishop]

Dave,

Not sure which side of the discussion you're supporting there.

My 2¢?

>   # Fix broken lists
>   :0 fhw
>   * ^Reply-To:.*
>   | formail -R Reply-To X-Reply-To

That's what the RPM delivers, anyway.  For those that proof their email, 
it doesn't add any extra work, and rather standardizes in a non-spammy way.

  - bish

Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
> I've seen this argument before. Its a great argument. It makes sense.
> Reminds me of a couple of times that I said:
> 
> "This turned out to be one of those things that looks great on paper but
> doesn't work well in the real world"
> 
> :) Dave
> 
> On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 17:27, Vicki Reeves wrote:
> 
>>Thomas Knoop wrote:
>>
>>>Why is the reply-to set to *not* answer to the list?
>>
>>There are 2 schools of thought on this.  For the whole argument, see the 
>>majordomo archives.  This quote from that source lists the three main 
>>reasons for setting a list up as this one is:
>>
>>
>>>1) it's clear to everyone who you are replying to, plus
>>>   that person gets an immediate copy even if the list is slow
>>>
>>>2) some people don't see ANY headers in their mail tool,
>>>   so this is the ONLY way they know who wrote the post!
>>>   (unless you convince everyone to use a sig block, or
>>>   set up the server to add the posting address to the body)
>>>
>>>3) you have a choice, without copy/paste, of replying
>>>   only to the poster or to the whole list (based on
>>>   using "reply" or "reply to all"). Remember that some
>>>   braindead mail tools don't show headers, so if a
>>>   person wants to reply off-list, they may not be able
>>>   to do it if you've configured all replies to the list.
>>
>>

-- 
	"What do you call the smaller ones;
	 Cabinet-Maker Ants?"  -- Kevin