Mail-Followup-To:

[Krikket]

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Jeff Kinz wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:06:53PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > Note that I, like a number of people, *prefer* to receive two copies.
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  right.....
> >
> > I will send you what you ask for. If you don't like what you are
> > asking for, follow the protocol and set Mail-Followup-To:.
>
> Mark - I've been on the internet for almost 25 years.  The proper
> practice, when posting to a list has always been to reply to the list
> unless the poster ASKS for a direct reply or asks to be replied to off
> list. Sending the person two copies of the same email has never been
> desirable.

I've been on the internet for 16 years.  Not quite your 25, but I'm sure
you'll grant me that it's more than most, and I likely know my way around
the block.

I happen to agree with Mark.  I *prefer* to receive two copies, and know a
lot of people also prefer this...  Some mailing lists have a convention of
going one way or another, but a hard & fast rule?  Nope.  If there was, it
probably would have made it into RFC1885...[1]  (Although it does say to
avoid using reply-to headers, which is related...)

[1] See previous thread.

> You are doing the opposite.  Please wake up and learn the difference
> between posting to the list and posting to both the list and the
> individual.  The former is the acceptable default.

Depending on where you are.  I haven't seen any overriding rules here.

Generally, if a person dislikes receiving multiple copies they are free to
configure procmail to delete the dups...

> If I wanted some other behaviour, then I would set followup-to.
> The list email comes to you from the list.  Please reply to the list.

See earlier comments about "Reply-to" and the RFC...

> It is quite easy to do this properly with an email client like mutt.
> Please don't ignore the "Reply-To" header.  It is specifying what to do
> quite properly.  It is specifying the acceptable default.
>
> I believe the Reply-To header, especially in the absence of a
> followup-to header does give you the proper instruction.

Reply-to is bad and evil.  I would be happy if it were removed
completely...

Krikket