From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 22:47:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F9516A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:47:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from makeworld.com (makeworld.com [198.92.228.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BB543D45 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:47:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from racerx@makeworld.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.com [127.0.0.1]) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834506122 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:47:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from makeworld.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (makeworld.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36593-07 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:47:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from [198.92.228.34] (racerx.makeworld.com [198.92.228.34]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by makeworld.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DC56121 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:47:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <420FD92C.5020706@makeworld.com> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:48:12 -0600 From: Chris User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050101) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org References: <420FCA6C.7070604@makeworld.com> <1987008862.20050213232914@wanadoo.fr> <420FD5D8.1090101@makeworld.com> <1657848357.20050213234523@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1657848357.20050213234523@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV 0.75.1/amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) at makeworld.com - Isn't it ironic Subject: Re: An observation X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:47:54 -0000 Anthony Atkielski wrote: > 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). > As Simon correctly points out - it's being directed to Questions. IF (and a big one for you to grasp) the Reply had Advocacy (being we're now discussing in here) there would not be an issue. Can you hear me now??? Goood -- Best regards, Chris The item you had your eye on the minute you walked in will be taken by the person in front of you.