[plug] Reply-to headers

[Bret Busby]

Matt Kemner wrote:
> 
> Bret, my message was not an invitation to start another flame war.
> It's all been done and said, and saying it all again isn't going to
> achieve anything, other than getting everyone all upset (maybe passionate
> is a better word) over it again.
> 
> If you want to read the opposing arguments for this particular (and any
> other for that matter) debate, go to http://www.cantech.net.au/plug/
> 
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Bret Busby wrote:
> 
> > I had previously believed, from what had been said by Matt in the past,
> > about this issue, that the current mailing list application did not
> > allow overriding the Reply To setting, and that majordomo did. I appear
> > to have misinterpreted what Matt had previously said about this.
> 
> What happened is, on another mailing list I run, enough people whinged
> about it, that I delved into the source and worked out how to fix it
> there.
> 
> The advantages of running a 100% Free (as in speech) mailing list
> server...
> 
> So do I hear any votes for keeping it as it is, or changing it?
> 
> No arguments please, just a Yes or No.
> 
>  - Matt
> P.S. It's actually a very simple (one letter) change.
> 
> -       -a"Subject: Unidentified subject!" ${reply_to:+"-a$reply_to"} \
> +       -a"Subject: Unidentified subject!" ${reply_to:+"-i$reply_to"} \


If my message was taken as flaming, then I am sorry.

I was just trying to state my opinion, and, to explain and justify it.

My vote is - that the Reply To address should be set to the mailing list
posting address; that it should override preset reply To addresses.

But, this would probably be clear from my previous posting, anyway.

-- 

Bret Busby

......................................