From: Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
Organization: Simkin Network Consulting
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:12:51 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <200810231701.m9NH1ML21995@momjian.us>
 <4900B39B.2040508@kkmfg.com>
In-Reply-To: <4900B39B.2040508@kkmfg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200810231112.51595@hal.medialogik.com>

On Thursday 23 October 2008, Collin Kidder <adderd@kkmfg.com> wrote:
> You must use Reply All. You
> might say that that makes Thunderbird crippled but I see it more as a
> sign that nobody outside of a few fussy RFC worshipping types would ever
> want the behavior of the Postgre list. Yes, I'll have to live with the
> current behavior. Yes, it's an RFC standard. But, even after having
> heard the arguments I'm not convinced that this list's behavior is
> desirable. YMMV.

If it bugs you that much, just fix it for yourself.

:0 fr
* ^(To:|Cc:).*pgsql-general@postgresql.org.*
| /usr/bin/formail -I "Reply-To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org"

.. and eliminate any dupes:

:0 Whc: /home/$USER/.msgid.lock
|/usr/bin/formail -D 1024 /home/$USER/.msgid.cache

If your MUA doesn't work right, procmail is your friend.

-- 
Alan