Vidiot wrote:
> >Kambiz is right. That's the way it's supposed to work (but I sorta
> >liked it the old way too)
>
> NOOOOO, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. A prime example is
> what happened with Kambiz's reply and my reply to you. What happened?
> You get TWO copies of the e-mail. The last thing I need is MORE e-mail
> in my mail box.
>
> As I mentioned, this is the ONLY list that I am on that replies to the
> sender and not the list.
>
> Sure, I can hit g)roup reply in elm, but as you can see, you end up with two
> pieces of e-mail, when one is all that is really needed, or necessary.
At first I did not understand this thread. Has the list stopped adding the
Reply to header? I added the procmail recipe below since the list server would
not add one if it was set in the MUA. Therefore I did not see any change in
behavior. Here is my recipe for redhat-list messages.
# Add a Reply-To to redhat-list messages and send to the proper mailbox
:0
* ^X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{
:0 f
| formail -A 'Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
:0:
Mail-lists/redhat-list
}
If the list has stopped setting the reply to, I would say this is not correct
behavior.
Bret
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
