Thread: Rép. : Mailing list question

I have the same problem.
AFAIK, this is not the usual behaviour for mailing lists.

Erwan

>>> Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc@mega-bucks.co.jp> 11/27 7:35  >>>
Silly questions really but ...

#1 all the messages I receive from the GENERAL mailing list have the
To:
field set to be the original poster, CC: set to the ML address, and
there is no Reply-To: field set ... is this normal?

The reason I ask is that I find myself sometimes replying to a ML
message and sending my reply to the individual rather than the ML ...
In
order to avoid this I have to hit reply-all and delete the OP's address

... a bit annoying.

Or is is standard ML practice/etiquette that I should send replies to
both the ML *and* OP?

Thanks!

Jc


---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
majordomo@postgresql.org

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:28:29 +0100,
  Erwan DUROSELLE <EDuroselle@seafrance.fr> wrote:
> I have the same problem.
> AFAIK, this is not the usual behaviour for mailing lists.

It depends on what lists you use. Technical mailing lists are often set
up without munging reply-to headers.

You can use a mail-followup-to header to tell mail clients where followups
should be sent. This header is not supported by all mail clients, so
it isn't always going to work.

Mutt has a reply to list function. Russel Nelson is advocating that
mail client implementors provide a reply to recipients function, but I
don't know that anyone has yet.

Personally, I think the disadvantages of reply-to munging outweigh its
advantages.