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

Thomas 'Balu' Walter tw at
Tue Dec 12 00:40:50 PST 2000

+-Gerard Beekmans-(gerard at[11.12.00 21:41]:
> > Except myself and the people behind
> >
> 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)

AFAIR I spoke up a while ago regarding this topic. But we discussed it
here and I understand your reasons for munging the reply-to.

I am using mutt, so I have no problems with either solution :)

The only thing that I think gets lost is - if I decide to get a personal
mail or I am writing from another account or similar and set a
reply-to:-header it gets lost...

But the problems many people had while we switched for a while made me
think munging is the nicer solution.


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