On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 07:41, Skip Montanaro wrote: > Greg> On 06 October 2003, Skip Montanaro said: > >> Maybe the Reply-To: for spambayes-checkins should be spambayes-dev > >> (and similarly for python-checkins/python-dev). Can that be > >> engineered through Mailman? > > Greg> Yes -- it's on the "General Options" page. Look for > Greg> reply_goes_to_list. > > After seeing your answer I know I asked the wrong question. <wink> I > shouldn't have said "Reply-To:". In X?Emacs/VM, I just hit the 'f' key to > reply to you and to cc spambayes-dev. Had this been a spambayes-checkins > message, it would have been nice if the cc went to spambayes-dev instead of > spambayes-checkin. > > I can probably solve that for myself by tweaking the vm-followup command > (what the 'f' key is bound to), but there's probably not a general solution. > Setting Reply-To: *might* be okay in a situation like this where you don't > want chit-chat on a checkins list to get lost or not seen by the larger > audience, but I'd only use it as a last resort. IMO as an anti-Reply-to munger, I think this is one situation where Reply-To hacking is perfectly legit. You don't want discussions on -checkins, you want them on the discuss mailing list (in this case spambayes-dev). MM2.1 can be configured to retain any existing Reply-To fields so people who have to set this to worm around their broken mail systems can still be coddled. python-devers and spambayes-devers, you vant I should do dis? -Barry
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4