On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:50:50 +0000, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 02:11 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > The other lists are the ones that are broken. (Fortunately it isn't > > too hard to strip off the reply-to headers, but the lists still break > > the normal use of the reply-to headers.) > > The other fedora lists appear to munge the Reply-To: header such that > the list address is added to any existing Reply-To: header if present, > thus honouring the intent of the poster's Reply-To: header. That's what I meant by broken. I strip the bogus reply-to headers. Replying to the list when you mean to reply to an indivual in private is usually a worse mistake than the converse. > Requiring the use of Reply-All usually results in posters getting two > copies of each reply, one privately and one from the list, which I'd > find really annoying if I wasn't deleting duplicate messages using > procmail. I still have to go to the trouble of removing the OP's address > and moving the list address from the Cc: field to the To: field whenever You can use mail-followup-to to specify that followups shouldn't to you directly. Some list processing software can also detect that you are cc'd and not send you a copy from the list in that case. A second copy of a message directly to you can have benefits in some cases. Particular examples are when the lists are slow and when you want to filter messages sent to you separately for special attention. -- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
