<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Jul 30, 2013 8:24 PM, "Josh Berkus" <<a
href="mailto:josh@agliodbs.com">josh@agliodbs.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > > I disagree with
noreplyaddresses on principle. They usually just<br /> > > represent the sender being lazy and not thinking hard
enoughabout<br /> > > where replies should go. Why wouldn't there be a good reason to reply<br /> > > to an
announcement?I've often wanted to reply to announcements.<br /> ><br /> > Because the poster of the annoucement
maybe largely unrelated to its<br /> > content. <p dir="ltr">That's what reply-to is for.<p dir="ltr">><br />
>For a PostgreSQL release announcement, for example, we want anybody who<br /> > has a comment or question to
sendmail to <a href="mailto:press@postgresql.org">press@postgresql.org</a>, NOT to<br /> > the sysadmin who posted
theactual -announce email. Having a noreply@<br /> > mailing address would enforce that.<p dir="ltr">It would
enforceit by totally breaking replies unless the user took manual intervention.
