Reply to: not set right?
Duston, Hal
hdusto01 at sprintspectrum.com
Thu Sep 21 16:19:04 CDT 2000
Brian,
I like it set up this way, although I don't know
if Mike was aware of it initially, and there was
some dissension before.
For some advocacy see
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
and
http://zseem.ids.bielsko.pl/qmail/koobera/www/proto/replyto.html
and
http://oswg.org/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_US.ISO_8859-1/articles/mladvice/mladvic
e.html#AEN172
And a discussion of this topic.
http://www.unicom.com/BBS/bbs_forum.cgi?forum=replyto
Look in our archives http://www.kclug.org/archive/2000/jul/
on the 4th and 5th of July under the topic of
"Block Tom Margrave Please" (Hi Tom!) for some discussion
we had on this topic. The Reply-to munging was a contributing
factor in that incident.
Hal Duston
Application Developer
913-906-4490
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Kelsay [mailto:bkelsay at askpioneer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:56 AM
> To: 'kclug at kclug.org'
> Subject: Reply to: not set right?
>
>
> I saw a msg. from Hal last week regarding the Reply to being
> set to the
> senders name, apparently this is still happening. Is this how we want
> Majordomo set up? I have seen way less discussion in the
> last week or so in
> response to postings, this could be why.
>
More information about the Kclug
mailing list