From owner-freebsd-chat Sat May 10 03:50:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA01354 for chat-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 03:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hda.hda.com (hda-bicnet.bicnet.net [207.198.1.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA01348 for ; Sat, 10 May 1997 03:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA26752 for chat@freebsd.org; Sat, 10 May 1997 06:49:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <199705101049.GAA26752@hda.hda.com> Subject: Reply-to addresses In-Reply-To: <19970510063006.GS50646@uriah.heep.sax.de> from J Wunsch at "May 10, 97 06:30:06 am" To: chat@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 06:49:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Use a mailer that does it for you then. I consider it extremely > unkind to save 1 minute in not rewriting the headers at the expense of > causing quite a number of people getting duplicates (once discussion > grows). The problem is deducing what people want. The eternally-growing "cc" list is a pain in the neck. But the individual in the reply-to address may appreciate the quick answer and not wait for the list delay. I try to always trim the cc: list back to the mailing list and leave the originator address (except in this case) where reply-to put it. -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936