At 10:50 AM 6/28/96 -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "SE" == Steve Easley <steve@netside.com> writes:
>
>SE> So if setting the Reply-To in the config file breaks RFCs what is
>SE> the proper way to have people reply to the list?
>
>This is something that is supposed to be handled by the MUA (mail user
>agent), not the mailing list manager. The only reason that mailing list
>managers like Majordomo include Reply-To headers is to deal with broken
>MUAs which do not distinguish between "reply" and "reply-all".
Right. However, there is another *very* valid reason for support of
the Reply-To header in majordomo ... help for the "e-mail challenged." :)
On my list, few folks seem to know the difference between Reply to
All and Reply, meaning, that replies meant for the list were going only to
the original poster. It was aggravating, of course. Changing the Reply-To
header to LISTNAME solves that problem, of course, while allowing those who
*do* understand an outgoing address to modify as they wish.
In short, for my list, having a default of replying to the list
works for almost everyone as those who don't get that they have to "reply-to
all" if they want a copy sent to the list now no longer have that problem,
while those who do understand how to address mail can easily make their
messages private, to the list and the poster, or only to the list.
Works for my bunch and I fail to see any real problem. Then again,
I'm not on the committee that decides these issues. Just my $.25 worth and
my personal experience running a (relatively) small list.
Happy weekend, Larry.
http://www.valleylaw.com * http://www.primenet.com/~lawrose/
*********************************************************************
Lawrence S. Rosenberg <lawrose@valleylaw.com> lawrose@primenet.com
Attorney At Law |Voice Mail: 818.399.0470
Los Angeles, California |Tel: 818.989.2434 - 213.873.4044
*********************************************************************
|
|
