From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 19:54:01
Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On 7/22/06 8:26 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Currently, the mailing list changes all the "reply-to" headers to the list's
>>> e-mail address. This forces all replies to go to the list and loses any
>>> custom e-mail address the sender may have added. I've read "'Reply-To'
>>> Munging Considered Harmful" <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
>>> and now wonder if we should change our policy.
>> The mods read that when setting the policy originally and we decided
>> it was not a good choice for Boost.
> Even though the alterations (currently) obliterate whatever the original
> poster may have had in the "reply-to" field?
> This cripples senders that
> must use a separate receiving address.
I don't know what that means.
> Since the "reply-to" field is
> supposed to override the "from" field, reply-to -all and -sender-only
> functions are also messed up.
Yes, sender-only is an unfortunate casualty. The upside is that when
you reply to a message in the usual way, it goes to the list.
Otherwise, IIRC, it ends up going to some individual instead of the
list, and then I at least don't notice that my reply went out
privately... or it goes to the individual _and_ the list, and people
get multiple copies of the same message.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk