Subject: RE: DAMN IT! REMOVE THE REPLY-TO!!

From: "Schramm, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 11:00:33 -0400

Didn't work, my reply to your message went to the list...

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Kent Landfield [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Friday, June 06, 1997 9:53 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Cc:	[email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: DAMN IT! REMOVE THE REPLY-TO!!
>
>I sent a request last night to the postmaster asking that they remove the
>Reply-To: redirect that was part of the list.  (I included some of the
>more colorful messages. ;-)) I suspect that others did so as well.  Mark's
>initial message went to the list owner. Well it looks as if they have
>done so.  This is really more of a test than anything else.  If your mail
>reader allows you to take a look at the headers, do so and see if the 
>Reply-To: is set back at the list.
>
>-- 
>Kent Landfield                        Phone: 1-817-545-2502             
>The Landfield Group                   FAX:   1-817-545-7650             
>Email: [email-masked]             http://www.landfield.com/
>Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to [email-masked].
>Search the Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/

---

From: [email-masked] (Rob Lingelbach)
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 19:45:54 -0700

On Jun 5, 16:16, Mark Galbraith wrote:
} Subject: DAMN IT!  REMOVE THE REPLY-TO!!

> I'm getting very tired of hitting "Reply" to send a private reply to
> someone on the list, and ending up having my reply blasted to the entire
> list.  This has happened too many times now, and I'm just about fed up.
> 
> Please let me know why you insist on mangling the Reply-To header.  I am
> very close to resigning from this list over this.  If you are planning
> to correct this misbehavior, I'll hold off.  If this doesn't change

the funny thing about this is, that when I looked at the Reply-To: on
your message quoted above, it contained your address only, which would
seem the opposite of what you thought.  And then, after the hue and
cry was raised on this mailinglist, the Reply-To: was changed to the
list address, which is definitely uncool!  Here are the applicable
headers from your message above, before the most recent change:

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
From: Mark Galbraith <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: DAMN IT!  REMOVE THE REPLY-TO!!

...so I would suggest that it's possible your mailer was using a
different header to generate the reply address, or else is using some
variation of a reply-to-all function.  The Reply-To: is set to the
author, not the list, which is 'considered' good net practice.

here are the headers from a more recent email through the wu-ftpd
group:

Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 00:02:57 +0000 ()
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]
From: "Mark W. de Raad" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Limit Number of Times a User can DL a File?

....so am I crazy, or has the *opposite* of the intended 'change'
taken place, i.e. the wu-ftpd list now has a reply-to pointing back to
the list, which (as was pointed out and is documented in
http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html) removes the
capability from most mailers of replying to only the author or only the
list, via the two reply functions (reply and reply-to-all)?

--Rob

-- 
Rob Lingelbach          |  2660 Hollyridge Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90068
[email-masked]  	| "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or 
[email-masked]		|  cat are not the better for it."  --Abraham Lincoln
[email-masked]		KB6CUN   http://www.alegria.com