Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(October 2000)
 

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

Subject: Re: elist address or your address in message TO header
From: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:19:43 -0400
To: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Cc: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier @ ripco . com>, list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <p04330114b61e6205d3a8@[17.216.27.202]>
References: <200010261853.e9QIrki29507@ripco.com> <p0433010ab61e38a02024@[17.216.27.202]> <20001026183343.N359@ma-1.rootsweb.com> <p04330114b61e6205d3a8@[17.216.27.202]>

On Thu, Oct 26, 2000 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> At 6:33 PM -0400 10/26/00, Tim Pierce wrote:
> 
> >Have any of the proponents of to-header munging considered how
> >replies to the list will be handled?  Are you going to move the
> >list's address to the Cc: header or something?
> 
> That's why I suggested adding the concept of "reply to list" to 
> "reply" and "reply all". Without that, and the associated header to 
> support it, there really *isn't* a good answer that doesn't create 
> some sort of problem in return.

OK, so this isn't a solution that works unless MUAs and their
users collectively implement a change to go along with it.

-- 
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb.com lead system admonsterator
and Chief Hacking Officer



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: elist address or your address in message TO header
From: Aaron Schrab <aaron+lm@schrab.com>
Next: Re: elist address or your address in message TO header
From: Dave Sill <de5-list-managers@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: elist address or your address in message TO header
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Next: Re: elist address or your address in message TO header
From: "David W. Tamkin" <dattier@ripco.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com