From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Apr 27 04:41:12 2010 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8EzsHRSMVt0T4Dv+dVjVhbQzvbumFRZtc5rU9l06Q7I=; b=EDD+6yNTiiTHbwtzzd2AeZw/flcLOwzkjkDTcrCwsd9evqgcbPn+Da/NFaA25blGkJ Olw1Z1XYk8z5c0Jc8P6TqeLoQlIzY6d7pgDH2MDSl6E9SEKXvdyG4S3gYoQhDs6sy1X8 Y4DYoHPd8LfrEWYz5d64rI171cL4qfOEGM0bc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=btiL1d0SYdJatuKHZolsMjPUKpmFfr18a+Y8J16GJ/zc99myThwOORoIYQbh0eamSv 8zf4K/r0GFTr+Y4tmr5vlpygkEhzXqHSBBSC5Hw5ycAyP9ikd2roskU0YaNa6wTle8+k WmcBF7xP/vXL89znhypr8WvYeCa0lR8CGCZv0= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2020469515.5212171272356526984.JavaMail.root@spooler6-g27.priv.proxad.net> References: <2020469515.5212171272356526984.JavaMail.root@spooler6-g27.priv.proxad.net> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:39:35 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MiNT] Messages received twice From: Miro Kropacek To: xavier.joubert@free.fr Cc: mint@lists.fishpool.fi, George Nakos Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151750d9d44dcb5b048533d5b4 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: miro.kropacek@gmail.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: --00151750d9d44dcb5b048533d5b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html > > Long story made short: the current setup is the right one. It is your MUA > responsability to provide features to handle it right. > Thanks for the link(s). To me, all but one argument in favor of original Reply-To seems very subjective. That one is: If you reply to the list by mistake due to reply-to munging, you look like an idiot, or worse. If you reply to the sender only by mistake, no harm is done, the mistake can be fixed. Even this one is debatable, I don't know about the others but I have never got into situation where I didn't notice the mail is from ML and not a private one. Anyway, this is going very offtopic, so I'm helpful for this new information for me, I'm not going to change it then unless people start to complain. -- MiKRO / Mystic Bytes http://mikro.atari.org --00151750d9d44dcb5b048533d5b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html

Long story made short: the current setup is the right one. It is your MUA r= esponsability to provide features to handle it right.
= Thanks for the link(s). To me, all but one argument in favor of original Re= ply-To seems very subjective. That one is:
If you reply to the list by mistake due to reply-to mun=
ging, you look like an idiot, or worse.
If you reply to the sender only by mistake, no harm is done, the mistake ca=
n be fixed.
Even this one is debatab= le, I don't know about the others but I have never got into situation w= here I didn't notice the mail is from ML and not a private one. Anyway,= this is going very offtopic, so I'm helpful for this new information f= or me, I'm not going to change it then unless people start to complain.=

--
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org
--00151750d9d44dcb5b048533d5b4--