From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Apr 27 12:42:13 2010 Message-ID: <4BD71238.4080005@atari-source.org> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:35:04 -0400 From: Mark Duckworth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] Messages received twice References: <2020469515.5212171272356526984.JavaMail.root@spooler6-g27.priv.proxad.net> <5FFA488B75DE4C1D8A0FE8250C290BD7@mercatus.local> In-Reply-To: <5FFA488B75DE4C1D8A0FE8250C290BD7@mercatus.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On 4/27/10 5:34 AM, Jo Even Skarstein wrote: > > "``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful" is written by a bitter geek > many years ago. Most of the arguments used are no longer valid. > Putting the blame on the MUA is easy, but not very constructive. Most > people doesn't choose MUA based on how they handle mailing lists. > > "Munging" Reply-To is not harmful, atleast not for this list. On the > contrary, it makes life easier. One eksample is this mail I'm writing > right now. Xavier made his reply the kosher way, by replying to all, > thus sending three copies of his mail to two subscribers of this > mailing list. Because I want to send my reply to the list only, I have > to remove two recipients on the To-field, remove one recipient in the > Cc-field and move the list address to the To-field. With "munged" > reply-to this would never be needed. If I did like Xavier, this reply > would now be sent in FOUR copies to three subscribers. > > If I had the occasional need to reply to the original sender of the > mail, I could simply choose "Reply to all" and remove the list adress. > I would prefer to do this than having to edit the recipient addresses > every time I want to reply to the list. > > Jo Even For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. Thanks, Mark