Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:45:23 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: An observation Message-ID: <1657848357.20050213234523@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <420FD5D8.1090101@makeworld.com> References: <420FCA6C.7070604@makeworld.com> <1987008862.20050213232914@wanadoo.fr> <420FD5D8.1090101@makeworld.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chris writes: > What your doing, is wrong. No, it's standard SMTP. I worked with corporate messaging systems for years; I know whereof I speak. The "reply-to" setting is always set at the discretion of the originating MUA, although MTAs can be configured to override it (but MTAs do not do this by default). The error is in the list configuration. People who reply to the list must either change the address manually or do a "reply all," which creates a duplicate message, one to the list and one to the sender. This wastes bandwidth, and it wastes human labor as well because almost all replies are replies to the list, and thus require constant "reply all" or address changes. The mailers handling the lists should be setting "reply-to" on all outgoing posts, or should change the sender to the address of the list. Some home-brewed list programs don't do this, however. > It's ignorant, and against the charter of the lists. I haven't been able to locate a charter for the lists, beyond a simple statement of the purpose of each list. Additionally, it's standard practice for mailing lists to route replies back to the list. I use the "reply-to" convention to compensate for lists that are misconfigured (they are a minority, but a significant minority). -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1657848357.20050213234523>