From owner-freebsd-bugs  Thu Aug  8 01:00:04 1996
Return-Path: owner-bugs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA19767
          for bugs-outgoing; Thu, 8 Aug 1996 01:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA19739;
          Thu, 8 Aug 1996 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 01:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199608080800.BAA19739@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Subject: Re: gnu/1472: send-pr could have a configurable Reply-To field
Reply-To: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR gnu/1472; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
To: leonard@dstc.edu.au
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gnu/1472: send-pr could have a configurable Reply-To field
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 08:28:59 +0200 (MET DST)

 As David Leonard wrote:
 
 >   FROM="$LOGNAME"
 > ! if [ -f $HOME/.reply-to ]; then
 > !   REPLY_TO="`sed -e '1q' $HOME/.reply-to`"
 > ! elif [ -z "$REPLY_TO" ]; then
 > !   REPLY_TO="$LOGNAME"
 > ! fi
 
 I thought the silent convention is to use the environmental variable
 ${REPLYTO} for this purpose?
 
 Many mailers and newsreaders do it this way, using a gratuitously
 different method (~/.reply-to) is IMHO wrong.
 
 -- 
 cheers, J"org
 
 joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
 Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)