On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 20:38 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 13:26 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
As it is now, almost every message I send, I have to manually delete the 'To:', and then change the 'CC:' to 'To:'... just as I did on this one.
But I have Reply-To set to this list, so this shouldn't be necessary?
I see you've added a Reply-To header later. The canonical response in this case is for someone to reference: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Yes, but even though you want them it doesn't mean that everyone else wants them. That's why I always hit Reply-to-all and if anyone is bothered by the duplicates they can enable the Reply-to-list flag.
Or get a mail client that eliminates duplicates based on message IDs, or use a simple procmail recipe to eliminate duplicates based on message IDs, or any number of other solutions...
The fact that you're now doing Reply-To munging and yet arguing that people do the Right Thing for duplicates seems inconsistent.
Every time this discussion comes up anywhere, the answer is still the same... There's no reason for Reply-To munging except that people have bad software and refuse to fix it and would rather have a workaround implemented for them, at the cost of those of us who use decent software. I realize this is your list and you can do what you want, but my vote is strongly against Reply-To munging.
Richard