Re: [Fsfe-uk] Reply-To on the mailing list

[Andrew Savory]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Chris Croughton wrote:

> Damn, no, it was supposed to be to the list.  Which is an excellent (if
> unintentional) example of why the Reply-To needs munging...

This has been re-hashed ad nauseum.

The example that I think is most conclusive is that of data loss. In my
reply, you'll notice I have set the reply-to header to a different address
(for whatever reason, I'm sure you could come up with hundreds of valid
reasons that you might do this on mailing lists).

If we set reply-to to go to address@hidden, what do we do with the
reply-to address I set?


Andrew.

-- 
All views are my own .... who else would want them?