From owner-freebsd-chat  Sat May 10 05:16:27 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA03338
          for chat-outgoing; Sat, 10 May 1997 05:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA03333
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 10 May 1997 05:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id FAA20154; Sat, 10 May 1997 05:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com>
cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Reply-to addresses 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 10 May 1997 06:49:05 EDT."
             <199705101049.GAA26752@hda.hda.com> 
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 05:16:30 -0700
Message-ID: <20151.863266590@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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 think it's time to add automatic pruning.  It's the only thing
which will work, and if you thought you really wanted two lists well,
our mailer software will simply say "no you didn't, trust me" and
I can honestly, totally, live with that restriction. :-)

					Jordan