[geeks] Re: [SunHELP] Re: [SunRescue] ADMINISTRIVIA: New list policies on "for sale" ads

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Monday, April 23, 2001 at 17:46:05 (-0500), Bill Bradford wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [SunHELP] Re: [SunRescue] ADMINISTRIVIA:  New list policies on "for sale" ads
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:10:33PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > this would be a lot easier to do if the MLM software didn't over-write
> > the reply-to header with its own.  It should only ever add such a header
> > if there is none (or, as some would argue, never add such a header! :-).
> 
> The rescue, geeks, and sunhelp lists do this (to facilitate conversation),
> but the sales lists directs replies back to the sender.  When I changed
> the rescue/geeks/sunhelp lists the same way, I got too many complaints...

My point was that the list software should not *change* a reply-to
address.  It's find and dandy (and helpful to facilitate converstaion,
just as you say) to *add* a reply-to header when there is none, but it's
*impossible* for posters to do as you requested if the list software
obliterates their good intentions by rewriting any reply-to address they
might have specified.

I don't know if your list software is this smart or not, but it should
be!  :-)

I personally always set the reply-to header to be the list address
whenever I post to any list I'm subscribed to (though I get lazy with
some of your lists :-); unless I specifically want a personal reply.  Of
course there are still people out there who'll CC the list anyway.  :-(

In other words I won't argue for or against any list policy which
requires that a reply-to header be added (regardless of where it
points), but I don't ever want any list to *change* my reply-to header!

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods at acm.org>     <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>