On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 14:51, Bob Tanner wrote:
> I'm finally catching up on email, I know I got several complaints about this.
>
> What has the list/community decided about preventing it?
I think it would be fair for a list policy to say something like:
Your address will be disabled if you send any vacation messages
or
Your address will be disabled if you send more than one vacation
message in one week
> Change the reply-to to the poster?
I hate this option. I know other people feel strongly the other way,
but there good reasons for keeping the Reply-To field as it is. Of
course, if the field ever went away, I'd quickly modify my .procmailrc
to add it back in again, so impact on me would be minimal.
I think that dealing with inadvertent replies to the list is much less
troublesome than typing in the list address every a person wants a reply
to be public (which I do, 99.999% of the time). Also, I consider the
"Reply To All" button to be highly dangerous -- it would be used much
more frequently if the Reply-To field went away.
For people who really prefer to have the user's original Reply-To
address, perhaps it would be possible to get the mailing list server to
keep it as X-Old-Reply-To, and then anyone with procmail skills (or some
other mail-mangling software) could set things up the way they like.
I know this won't solve the vacation message problem, but there must be
good procmail rules for filtering out the most common vacation
messages...
--
_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Reality is for people who
/ \/ \(_)| ' // ._\ / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__ lack imagination.
\_||_/|_||_|_\\___/ \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __)
[ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088 at tc.umn.edu ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20030712/69d5423a/attachment.pgp