Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3337 mails)

< Previous Next >
FAQ: Why Reply-to Me? (was Re: [SLE] Which Linux?)
  • From: ken <gebser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:13:27 -0400
  • Message-id: <44337C27.6090504@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Ken,
>
> On Monday 03 April 2006 10:40, ken wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>>No, my mailer isn't hallucinating. Because I wanted replies to my
>>>>post to go to the list, I put the list address in the Reply-to
>>>>field. (Makes sense, yes?) The list server must have removed it.
>>>You claimed that Patrick's mail had a Reply-To, which it does not.
>>>I obviously haven't checked them all, but I'm pretty sure none of
>>>Patrick's list postings have a Reply-To header.
>>>
>>>Randall Schulz
>>Thanks, Randall. I was wondering why I started the thread "Why no
>>Reply-to?" Does this (my) email have a Reply-to field in it?
>
> Yes:
>
> Reply-To: Suse Linux English <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Randall Schulz
>

Thanks much for the reply and confirmation. So it would seem that if I
post something to this list and want replies to it to go to the list,
all I have to do is include a header which says:

Reply-to: Suse Linux English <suse-linux-e@xxxxxxxx>

If I don't include this header in my post, then I should fully expect
that people will reply to me instead of to the list... and I would
really have no grounds for complaining about this to them, no call for
asking them, "Why did you reply to me? Please reply to the LIST."

This use of Reply-to shouldn't require changing to a different email
client or even the reconfiguring of one's current client. Nor does it
mandate a change in the way the list server is configured. It simply
allows the sender to specify where replies to his or her post should be
directed.

Yes?

--
"This world ain't big enough for the both of us,"
said the big noema to the little noema.


< Previous Next >
Follow Ups