Chad Walstrom wrote: >On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:43:14PM -0500, Jeremy Rosengren wrote: > > >>So it's somewhat of a purity vs. ease-of-use argument. This is the >>only list of the 20 (- 5-10 that I've unsubscribed from) that I >>subscribe to that does this, however. >> >> > >I find that hard to believe, but this all depends upon what types of >lists you belong to. In my experience, lists with technical users >generally shy away from Reply-To munging. I get PISSED off when I >have to kill and email draft because the To: field didn't get >populated with the original sender of the email. If I reply, I want >to reply to the sender. If I Reply All, I want to reply to the list. >It seems very logical. Reply All == List. Reply == Invidual. Why >screw with logic? > > Fair enough. I went back and checked my lists again, and I think my percentages are skewed because of the number of RedHat mailing lists I subscribe to. RedHat's config munges Reply-To on all lists, even the technically-oriented ones. Some of the others I only read, but when I checked they were configured as TCLUG's list is. > > >>Are there other people on this list who subscribe to a lot of other >>mailing lists that are configured the way the TCLUG list is? >> >> > >90% of them are configured as TCLUG is. And for the ones that aren't, >I un-munge them with procmail. Basically, if the To: and Reply-To: >are the same, kill the Reply-To. > > > Before I return to lurking -- anybody have any idea if Thunderbird is going to get a Reply To List feature ever? Thanks, -- jeremy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20050902/7264b2e8/attachment.htm