[tpop3d-discuss] Reply-To: munging

[Paul Warren]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 08:49:25PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> [Thinks: shouldn't have started this flamewar.]

Oh it's fun.  It's whole weeks since it came up on any of the other
mailing lists I'm on, and I didn't get involved that time so I feel I
ought to make up for lost time :-)

> I disagree. If I set a Reply-To:, I presumably have some
> good reason to do so; so, if the mailing list software
> goes and overwrites it with something else, my intentions
> will be lost. This sucks if you are forced to use a From:
> header which is not an address at which you can frequently
> read mail.

Absolutely.

> > This for me is the clincher. If you're on a community list that is
> > encouraging discussion amongst all participants then having to
> > constantly trim back To: and Cc: is a waste of time and irritating to
> > get dupes. (Yes, I know there are some stunningly opaque procmail
> > solutions using databases of message-ids but not all email clients set
> > message-ids nor users should have the onerous task of using procmail in
> > its more wizardly configurations.)

I believe that mailman does, or can be made to, avoid sending dupes.
Personally, I *like* appearing on the To: field.  It means that my
procmail filter pulls a copy into my inbox, rather than just into the
list folder, and also, I can see the messages that are actually to me as
the have a helpful little "T" next to them.  I get enough spam each day
to be fully aquainted with my "d" key, so dupes don't really bother me.

> Yes. Mutt rocks, etc.

No, I think that the author had it right - it just sucks less.

Paul