[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[OT] lkml reply-to header (was: Re: problem with 2.4.0-test9-pre6 seems to be SHM)
safemode wrote:

> Reply ALL also results in 2 mails being sent instead of one but of course this is usually not a problem since one is going direct and the other is going through vger, but still... it's kind of wasteful to
> resources and i dont see any harm in Reply-to being sent in the header. Proftpd's mailing list seems to work fine with it. Is your position against it just due to client incompatibility?

It's only wasteful if you don't remove unwanted addresses from the list. No, my position isn't due to client incompatibility on the contrary my client is pretty good at making it easy for me to include/exclude
addresses and react to headers appropriately. It's purely due to RFC guidelines and common practice requests. I wrote and maintain a mailing list server and have done scads of research on RFCs and documents written
by other authors on this.

Frankly I just reply-all, hilite the recipient and type 'lkml'. You're more than welcome to use procmail/formail and insert a reply-to header on your own mailbox if you want to make it easy for yourself.


"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are
virtue and talents", Thomas Jefferson [1742-1826], 3rd US President

org:<img src="">
title:Blue Labs Developer
fn:David Ford
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.099 / U:0.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site