An observation

Chris racerx at
Sun Feb 13 14:47:54 PST 2005

Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> Chris writes:
>>What your doing, is wrong.
> No, it's standard SMTP. I worked with corporate messaging systems for
> years; I know whereof I speak. The "reply-to" setting is always set at
> the discretion of the originating MUA, although MTAs can be configured
> to override it (but MTAs do not do this by default).
> The error is in the list configuration.  People who reply to the list
> must either change the address manually or do a "reply all," which
> creates a duplicate message, one to the list and one to the sender.
> This wastes bandwidth, and it wastes human labor as well because almost
> all replies are replies to the list, and thus require constant "reply
> all" or address changes.
> The mailers handling the lists should be setting "reply-to" on all
> outgoing posts, or should change the sender to the address of the list.
> Some home-brewed list programs don't do this, however.
>>It's ignorant, and against the charter of the lists.
> I haven't been able to locate a charter for the lists, beyond a simple
> statement of the purpose of each list. Additionally, it's standard
> practice for mailing lists to route replies back to the list. I use the
> "reply-to" convention to compensate for lists that are misconfigured
> (they are a minority, but a significant minority).

As Simon correctly points out - it's being directed to Questions. IF 
(and a big one for you to grasp) the Reply had Advocacy (being we're now 
discussing in here) there would not be an issue.

Can you hear me now??? Goood

Best regards,

The item you had your eye on the minute you walked in
will be taken by the person in front of you.

More information about the freebsd-advocacy mailing list