On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 08:47:34AM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 03:07:05AM -0600, Joel Schneider wrote: > > <:-)> > > On the other hand, maybe it would make sense to "enhance" the > > functionality of "Reply-To" by adding scriptability and regular > > expressions ... (sort of like a mini-procmail) > > </:-)> > > Just so long as the syntax is human-readable... mmmkay. > > I disagree with this conclusion. My inclination is to follow the > > K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle where possible and > > optimize for the most common scenario (e.g. sending mail back to the > > list). > > ...or for MUAs to start adding support for a 'reply to list' > function. (/me joins ^chewie's lovefest for mutt's 'L' command) Too bad everyone is not fortunate enough to be using mutt. > > I'm also inclined to think that not just anyone should be armed with > > the capability to easily manipulate the default behavior of list > > traffic -- that authority should be reserved for list admins or > > other types of moderators. > > Since when is it Bob's job to decide where my mail should go or where > I should receive replies? Since when is it your job to decide where my mail should go? The endless circle continues ... > BTW - most lists that mung reply-to won't > override a user-specified reply-to, they'll only add one where none > exists, which leaves posters with the ability to "manipulate the > default behavior of list traffic" originating from them. That sounds a little bit funky to me. Oh well. .. now double-checking to make sure this message is addressed to tclug-list at mn-linux.org .. Joel