On Fri, 18 Aug 1995 list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM wrote:
> Received: from relay2.UU.NET (relay2.UU.NET [192.48.96.7]) by ASARian.org (8.6.10/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08346 for <fuzzy@asarian.org>; Sat, 19 Aug 1995 00:04:03 -0400
> From: list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> Received: from miles.greatcircle.com by relay2.UU.NET with ESMTP
> id QQzdki29958; Sat, 19 Aug 1995 00:01:51 -0400
> Received: (majordom@localhost) by miles.greatcircle.com (8.6.9/Miles-950430-1) id VAA13075 for list-managers-digest-outgoing; Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:00:27 -0700
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 21:00:27 -0700
> Message-Id: <199508190400.VAA13075@miles.greatcircle.com>
> To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
> Subject: List-Managers-Digest V4 #154
> Reply-To: List-Managers@GreatCircle.COM
> Errors-To: list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> Precedence: bulk
>
>
we are using MD also, and are using 'reply-to: <listname>' to make it
easier for list members to default to public replys. our headers
look something the above headers...
our users are using pine 3.91 and it asks, if there is a reply-to:,
if it should use the original from:, (private reply), or reply-to:,
(public reply). we find this works fine for our users. in fact they like
that the MUA asks them.
we are confused as why one would not want the choice?
Your Friend,
_____ __ __ ____ ____ __ __
/ ___// // //__ )/__ )\ \/ /
/ __/ / // / / /__ / /__\ /
(_/ (____/ <____/<____//_/
SysAdmin, ASARian.org
Email: fuzzy@asarian.org (non-anon)
an72289@anon.penet.fi (true anon)
anon-2986@anon.twwells.com (true anon)
Follow-Ups:
|
|
