Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 1993)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: A question of philosophy
From: John Martin <John . Martin @ newcastle . ac . uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1993 19:05:45 +0000 (GMT)
To: cds @ ossi . com (Chris Seabrook)
Cc: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
Address: Computing Service, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
In-reply-to: <199312061805.KAA07918@foucault.ossi.com> from "Chris Seabrook" at Dec 6, 93 10:05:19 am
Organisation: NISP Mailbase (TM)
Phone: +44 91 222 8087 (voice) +44 91 222 8765 (fax)

> What behaviour/header values have other people been asked for by their
> subscribers ??

We at Mailbase were asked for, and now provide, this feature ...
However, there are important feature differences:

1. It is an option, determined by the list owner, whether the Reply-To
field should contain the name of the list. The list owner can change
this at any time.

2. If a Reply-To field exists in the incoming message then one is not
added.

Thus a user still has the option to request a private response.

This is not a flame but I'm not sure I agree with removing Reply-To
headers from incoming mail, but then I dont suppose you are
contravening RFC822 so it is up to you.

Regards,

John
--
AKA: postmaster@mailbase.ac.uk


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: A question of philosophy
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>
Next: Re: A question of philosophy
From: John Martin <John.Martin@newcastle.ac.uk>
Indexed By Thread Previous: A question of philosophy
From: Chris Seabrook <cds@ossi.com>
Next: Re: A question of philosophy
From: John Martin <John.Martin@newcastle.ac.uk>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com