Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6572164FC5A for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:47:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60208-05 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:47:32 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDB964FC08 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:47:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9M3lUpq020141; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m9M3lU01020138; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:47:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:47:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: aidan@highrise.ca cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To In-Reply-To: <20081017194308.GB16893@yugib.highrise.ca> Message-ID: References: <48F85CED.7000009@batory.org.pl> <6D3E0C6E-B2F4-4BAF-92E0-46C4EAE4D51B@hoegh.org> <48F867EE.5040403@batory.org.pl> <20081017072017.1039f895.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <74826FB8-0529-486A-A6A5-4C6DE161D3C9@hoegh.org> <20081017080103.ba3ca072.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20081017084917.f6840c44.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <48F8E10D.10500@burntmail.com> <20081017194308.GB16893@yugib.highrise.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/939 X-Sequence-Number: 139188 On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Aidan Van Dyk wrote: > But now, if the list munged my reply-to, how would you get back to me? Why'd you have to interrupt a perfectly good, unwinnable idealogical argument with a technical question? While there is only one reply-to allowed for a message, you can put multiple addresses in there. It is not necessarily the case that a list that munges the header must be lossy (although majordomo isn't a good example here[1]). As most incoming list messages around only have a from, not a reply-to, you can usefully add reply-to for regular messages to redirect them to the list (the goal people who are pro list-based reply to want) and append the list address to any existing reply-to for the occasional odd message that specifies it directly, like yours I'm replying to. As for an actual implementation of good behavior here, see the end of http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html for one example of list software that supports adding a reply-to without stripping any already there off in the process.