Munging reply-to header (was: Re: [OT] Roggenfloggen...)

Mike Hildebrandt mikehild at
Mon Dec 11 12:59:30 PST 2000

I like it the way it is now.  The only time I've responded directly to
someone on the list is when their message was sent directly to me to begin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lfs-discuss-owner at
> [mailto:lfs-discuss-owner at]On Behalf Of Gerard
> Beekmans
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 12:29 PM
> To: lfs-discuss at
> Subject: Munging reply-to header (was: Re: [OT] Roggenfloggen...)
> > Except myself and the people behind
> >
> I am well aware of all the facts stated in that document. I
> would be an
> ignorant list admin if I didn't read the docs for list admins
> before starting
> to manage lists.
> That aside, the reason why I munge reply-to is the following:
> not everybody uses a client that you can tell to reply to the
> list only (like
> mutt can do). So those people need to use the group-reply
> button. That's very
> nice in itself. It sends a message to the author and to the
> mailinglist. That
> means for every reply to a message posted by you, you will
> two replies. One
> directed at you personally, one to the list. I got complains
> about this in
> the past and I know I will get complaints again. I say if the
> majority of the
> frequent posters on this list get annoyed with the double
> message (I for one
> get highly annoyed with that. It's not that I receive one or
> two double
> messages a day, in my case it's closer to a few hundred
> doubles a day, just
> over the lfs mailinglists).
> Sure, I know, I manage the lists so it's not your guys' fault
> that I'd
> receive those doubles and I understand that. That's why if it
> was just me I
> wouldn't be munging the headers. The delete key works very nicely.
> But the point is still that there are a lot of people here
> that don't like
> receiving double messages. Also, the just want to hit reply
> and expect the
> message to end up on the mailinglist wihtout them having to
> remove the
> personal author's address from the TO: or CC: field.
> I know these aren't solid grounds for my doing this. I also
> disagree with
> this line from that website:
> <quote>
> Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the
> ones who have
> bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it.
> </quote>
> If they don't like this, all they need to do is send a
> message to the list or
> to me personally and ask if it can be disabled because it's
> inconvenient for
> them. It's arrogant to think that everybody who read the docs
> automaticaly
> will not like the reply-to munging. I read all the docs. I am
> well aware of
> the group-reply and I hate it. I hate having to remove the
> author's email
> address from the To: field when I reply to a message on a
> mailinglist because
> I can understand that there are others who may not like the
> double messages
> (i'm sure I'm not the only one who think it's a waste of
> bandwidth, disk
> space and all that to have to download two copies of the
> exact same email due
> to laziness on the sender's behalve).
> So far Seth (if he's still on this list) is the only person
> out of a few
> hundred on this list who complained about this. One person
> not liking the
> current setup isn't enough reason for me to chagne this I'm
> afraid. Are there
> any other people here who don't like the reply-to munging?
> (no i don't need a
> 51% majority to make the change. A 51% majority of the
> frequent posters
> usually makes me change things)
> So speak up or be silent forever (well until the next person
> brings up this
> discussion)
> --
> Gerard Beekmans
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
> --
> Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
> and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list