Spam Filter

[Tim]

Tim:
>> You're misusing reply-to, you get to reap the consequences for it.

Aaron Konstam:
> I wish we could discuss this off list but you have made that impossible.
> What I ma asking you to do is to use the reply to list feature of your
> email program. It does have one does it not? 
> Somehow when I reply to a list post the post goes only to the list. Why
> doesn't your replies do that?

The problem is entirely created by you.  I'm not trying to be insulting,
here's the explanation (below).  I'm keeping this message on the public
list because the information is not just pertinent to you.

You have specified your own address in the "reply-to" headers for the
messages that you send.  Normally, if you were posting directly to a
person, your "from" address would be yours, your "reply-to" address, if
there was one, is an instruction to reply to that "reply-to" address,
instead.

It is an overriding instruction.  It means, "reply here" and nowhere
else (ignore the from address).  It doesn't mean that you can optionally
reply there, you're being told to reply there.

If you're not telling people reply to another address (e.g. reply to
your work address, despite you writing from a home address), then you
shouldn't have any "reply-to" header.

i.e. Do *NOT* set the "from" and "reply-to" headers to the same address.
Just have a "from" header".

Where this gets messy is when you write to a mailing list.  This one,
like many, writes its own address in the "reply-to" field, so replies
normally go back to the list.  Keeping the mailing list a community
thing, rather than a list of questions with no answers (as would happen
if people replied privately).  This is something that I agree with, this
particular list would be best served if used in that manner.

For many other mailing lists, that would be the end of things.  Your
"from" address would remain, your "reply-to" address (if there was one)
would be wiped out and replaced with the list's.  Giving respondents an
easy way to reply to the list (with their reply button), or reply
privately (with a reply to sender action).  This list acts differently,
it *adds* its "reply-to" address to your "reply-to" address.  There's
logic in that, it allows participants to indicate that they want a
private reply, but it seems to confuse people.

I am using my mail client properly.  I am replying by pressing the
"reply" button.  It sends the replies to where they've been requested to
go (the "reply-to" address, or the list of "reply-to" addresses).

Even if I had a "reply to list" button, it shouldn't make any
difference, because your address is being placed in the "reply-to"
field.  It would go to both, still.

As it stands, I could do a normal reply (obey the "reply-to"
instructions), or a reply to the sender (the "from" address).  But
without hand-editing the reply's "to" address, there's no way to stop
replies going back to you, because you've filled your own address into
the "reply-to" field in your mailer.  Remove your address from the
"reply-to" field if you do not want to be sent private replies.

Again, I've had to hand edit the "to" address for this message so that
it doesn't go directly to you.  I'm doing this because I'm presuming by
your other messages that you don't want them.  But I can't really tell,
your messages say that you do (because it's in the header).  There's one
person in this thread making a mess of using a mailing list, and it's
you.

In another message you made a comment about when you've replied to me
it's gone to my private address.  This should only happen if you've
tried to deliberately do so.  By default, anything I've sent to the list
will have no "reply-to" address set by me, so it will have the lists
one.  The replies should go back to the list.  I don't want private mail
about list matters.  I don't want private mail about off-topic matters,
unless I invite it.

-- 
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.