Ethan: if this solves your problem please let me know and I'll reset
the other lists otherwise ......???
Cheers,
Dave H, Cryst. Birkbeck.
On Tue, 31 Jan 1995 ethan+@pitt.edu wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> Er, you probably already thought about this, but what would happen if the
> reply-to fields on stuff sent out by the listproc were all set to the
> original sender? (and on pps-all, to /dev/null ;-) ).
>
> While it would make doing a wide reply a bit harder, I for one would
> gladly put up with that for the sake of saving hundreds of
> mistakenly-sent messages from going out to everyone on the list. I
> don't know what all the various mailers do with the reply-to header,
> but it might help on at least some cases. Maybe other fields need to
> be changed instead or as well (sender, from, originator?) this is out
> of my depth... In any case, a standard wide-reply function should
> look at the to field, no? which would still work, methinks.
>
> I'm not sure what the right response is to those who have erred; I
> have been politely and discretely offering help to those who have
> mistakenly replied to pps-all....
>
> But all in all I think it is going very smoothly- thanks to the
> organizers!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ethan
> ethan+@pitt.edu
> http://www.pitt.edu/~ethan
>
>
>
>