(OT) Selective non-flaming re Reply-To [Was: Finding a Remote IP]

[Alex K. Angelopoulos]

For various reasons, I'm locked into Outlook Express at the moment. 
Windows-side, I think that's what most people have issues with; the 
comprehension and flexible handling of headers for OE is abysmal with no 
improvement in sight.  That brings us back to manually changing the 
addresses, which is easy enough - in OE, you can just "Reply All" and then 
delete the personal names should you so choose.

It's a little annoying, but I can see the potential grief for 
troubleshooting and validation issues with header munging by the list 
server.


Mr Invader wrote:
> i have filtering set up in Evolution and kmail and it works good.. its
> all in what header you specify. If you dont like the `reply to address
> setting, just add the list email to your address book with an easily
> typeable name like vnc and just delete out the original poster's name,
> unless of course you want it to go to both. there's always cc and bcc as
> well..
>     Just a longtime troll and periodic poster's 02 cts
>
>
> On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38, John Kaufmann wrote:
>> In the course of an old familiar topic [Finding a Remote IP], another
>> old familiar topic [re Reply-To:] arose, and David Balazic wrote at
>> 10:49 +0200 040825:
>>
>>>  > From: vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com[SMTP:vnc-list-admin "at" realvnc.com]
>>>>  on behalf of Kenton White[SMTP:kenton "at" ukonline.co.uk]
>>>>
>>>  > In your message dated Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:29:08 -0500, Alex said...
>>>>
>>>  > > FYI - when replying using a client like Outlook Express, do
>>>  > > a "Reply All" or it doesn't go to the mailing list. ;)
>>>>
>>>>  That's excellent advice. However ALL of the other list servers I
>>>>  belong to change the Reply-To address to make this unnecessary.
>>>> It's a shame this
>>>  > list doesn't. Makes filtering harder too.
>>>
>>> What is hard about this ?
>>>
>>> There are split opiniopns about setting Reply-To: , see
>>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>>
>>> Please try not to restart thet flame war here ;-)
>>
>> That is useful advice, even to those who regard this list's reply
>> management as second-best.  However, in giving such advice, at a
>> minimum don't stack the deck by noting "split opinions" while citing
>> only one side of the split.  So I complete your post by adding the
>> other canonical citation:
>> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
>>
>> [FWIW, regardless one's position on the issue, one may observe that
>> the former resorts to disparaging RFC-822 in order to make his case,
>> while the latter is both more gracefully written and *supports* the
>> RFCs -- a powerful meta-argument for the latter citation.]
>>
>> A final observation:  Like most lists, the largest mailing-list
>> ensemble (Yahoo Groups) has always used Reply-To:<list> -- and those
>> lists:
>>    a) Rarely see any of the harmful effects cited by those who
>>       disparage Reply-To:<list>, and
>>    b) Never see the dreary and predictable frequency with which this
>>       topic returns to _this_ list. (Indeed, I can't think of one such
>>       list on which I have *ever* seen this topic.)
>> If facts be our guide ...
>> --
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> VNC-List mailing list
>> VNC-List "at" realvnc.com
>> To remove yourself from the list visit:
>> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> _______________________________________________
> VNC-List mailing list
> VNC-List "at" realvnc.com
> To remove yourself from the list visit:
> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list