[tpop3d-discuss] Reply-To: munging

Chris Lightfoot chris at ex-parrot.com
Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:20:56 +0100


On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:09:56PM +0100, Paul Warren wrote:
> 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 :-)

Perhaps we should create reply-to-munging@lists.beasts.org?

    [duplicate mailings]
> > > 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. [...]
> 
> I believe that mailman does, or can be made to, avoid sending dupes.

Hmm. I'll have a look. [FX: Wanders in direction of
mailman documentation, muttering darkly about the
Principle of Least Surprise.]

> 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.

This argument is also possessed of considerable merit.

> > Yes. Mutt rocks, etc.
> 
> No, I think that the author had it right - it just sucks less.

Sucks less and rocks are about equivalent for software, I
fear....

-- 
Chris Lightfoot -- www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/
 language not worship must pink delirious sleep produce
 (fridge poetry)