[Mailman-Users] Re: Mailman-Users digest, Vol 1 #870 - 2 msgs

[James Aylett]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:22:42AM -0700, Ray Frush wrote:

> If Reply-to munging is enabled, I would expect that it would really
> munge.  That is, if you turn on the feature, it will ALWAYS exhibit the
> behaviour.  In the current version, Reply-To: munging appears broken
> because it appears to work part of the time.

I'm inclined to agree. The current behaviour isn't actually terribly useful,
because if you're using it to encourage traffic back to the list (a) it
won't really do its job, (b) that's more an MUA issue.

If you're using it to scoop a gateway address into a list, it won't help,
because the list won't be mentioned anywhere if the sender had Reply-To:
set. This could again be considered an MUA issue (some MUA's detect lists
by, eg, List-Id, whereas others just look for the To/Cc address).
Alternatively, you could hack the alias to the list in the To: line to be
the canonical list address, in the MLM. Not sure if this is worse; I'd
suspect that done carefully it's actually much, much better. Things would
get interesting if we got into encapsulated messages going to the list,
where playing with a header could mess up the encapsulation, but I doubt
that will happen.

I can't think of another reason to munge Reply-To. So my vote would have to
be forceful munging.

J

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  james aylett                                   chief technical architect
  http://www.tangozebra.com/                                    tangozebra

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered
through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For further information visit
http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp