On Sat, 16 Mar 1996 list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 01:00:30 -0800 (PST)
> From: list-managers-digest-owner@GreatCircle.COM
> To: list-managers-digest@GreatCircle.COM
> Subject: List-Managers-Digest V5 #52
>
>
> List-Managers-Digest Saturday, 16 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 052
>
> From: de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov
> Date: 15 Mar 1996 13:20:06 GMT
> Subject: Re: Changing Reply-To: Fields
>
> >I have read the FAQ and the Manual, but this concept is still unclear to
> >me. I would really like the reply to field to read:
> >
> >Reply-To: NAME OF MY LIST (listname@marquee.com)
>
> This is really a bad idea.
>
> Just about every modern mail agent provides a way to reply either to
> just the sender (From: or Reply-To:) or to everyone (From:/Reply-To:,
> To:, and CC:).
>
> The "fix" is educating users in carefully reading headers (a very
> valuable skill) and learning how to operate their software (another
> very important skill). Hacks like using Reply-To: to direct replies to
> the list are bad because they discourage proper understanding and
> usage of the system and penalize those who know how things really
> work.
>
I don't agree... for example this list, (list-managers), is setup the way
he wants to do it. that way the sender/from:/envolope-address is the list
owner, (for bounces and other errors), and the reply-to: is the list for
the usual form replying to the list. if the sender/from:/envolope-address
were the list wouldn't email bounces go to the list and cause mail-loops?
Fuzzy
Follow-Ups:
|
|
