Mail-Followup-To:
Krikket
krikket at gothpoodle.com
Mon Jan 5 04:51:02 UTC 2004
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:06:53PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Note that I, like a number of people, *prefer* to receive two copies.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ right.....
> >
> > I will send you what you ask for. If you don't like what you are
> > asking for, follow the protocol and set Mail-Followup-To:.
>
> Mark - I've been on the internet for almost 25 years. The proper
> practice, when posting to a list has always been to reply to the list
> unless the poster ASKS for a direct reply or asks to be replied to off
> list. Sending the person two copies of the same email has never been
> desirable.
I've been on the internet for 16 years. Not quite your 25, but I'm sure
you'll grant me that it's more than most, and I likely know my way around
the block.
I happen to agree with Mark. I *prefer* to receive two copies, and know a
lot of people also prefer this... Some mailing lists have a convention of
going one way or another, but a hard & fast rule? Nope. If there was, it
probably would have made it into RFC1885...[1] (Although it does say to
avoid using reply-to headers, which is related...)
[1] See previous thread.
> You are doing the opposite. Please wake up and learn the difference
> between posting to the list and posting to both the list and the
> individual. The former is the acceptable default.
Depending on where you are. I haven't seen any overriding rules here.
Generally, if a person dislikes receiving multiple copies they are free to
configure procmail to delete the dups...
> If I wanted some other behaviour, then I would set followup-to.
> The list email comes to you from the list. Please reply to the list.
See earlier comments about "Reply-to" and the RFC...
> It is quite easy to do this properly with an email client like mutt.
> Please don't ignore the "Reply-To" header. It is specifying what to do
> quite properly. It is specifying the acceptable default.
>
> I believe the Reply-To header, especially in the absence of a
> followup-to header does give you the proper instruction.
Reply-to is bad and evil. I would be happy if it were removed
completely...
Krikket
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list