Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 19:05]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* ken <gebser@speakeasy.net> [08-14-06 17:39]:
For me, replying to the list isnt' a major problem. But I'd also like to automatically set my Reply-to field for outgoing mail to the list's address as well. As far as I know, this isn't something that procmail can do (as it handles only incoming mail), correct? A simple matter to add a 'Reply-To:' header on your incoming mail originating from opensuse* to accomplish your desire. There is no necessity to fool with outgoing mail. This also abides by the RFC as it will only affect *your* submissions. This doesn't make sense. Please read my question again.
It sure does. If you add via procmail a 'Reply-To: <list-address>' header to incoming list mail, when you reply to it, it will automagically take the list address. What is there to not understand?
:0: * ^X-Mailinglist:.*opensuse|\ ^TO_.*opensuse@ ! $FORMAIL -i "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" $MAILDIR/opensuse
this will add the header "Reply-To: opensuse@opensuse.org" to all opensuse list mail. When you decide to post an answer or comment to an opensuse posting, "reply" will select opensuse@opensuse.org address.
is more explanation necessary?
Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now. You threw me a bit of a high-and-inside curve ball with the assertion that this solution "abides by the RFC [2822]", to wit: If *my* adding a Reply-To (to the list) to incoming mail doesn't violate the RFC, how is it that list server doing the same thing _does_ violate the RFC? I'm not asking you to 'explain your way out of this contradiction' or anything like that. I don't put myself in the "correct" camp of the issue (I'm much more an advocate of the sensible... even more of universal congruity). But it could be that *adding* a Reply-To doesn't violate 2822 (for those squeamish about that); i.e., the list server could *add* a "Reply-To suse-linux-e@suse.com" to all its incoming mail and this would make both the "correct" and sensible camps happy. It wouldn't be _changing_ the author's Reply-To, but it would allow the list to function like a many-to-many medium... as originally intended. (Yes, this would mean posters would receive duplicates. But (1) this is, IMO, far less annoying and (2) could be filtered out easily on the client side and, should we find enlightenment, perhaps eventually on the server side.) Would this lexical workaround applied to the list server raise anyone's hackles? If so, how?