Paul Echeverri <gomi at pollywog.com> writes: > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:24:02 -0500, Peter H. Granzeau > <pgranzeau at cox.net> wrote: > >> Please explain. I don't understand what this means. I use Eudora. > > Ah. > > For some reason, preserving the 'functionality' of reply-to:all, so > that one gets duplicates of all messages (since reply-to:all sends to > both the list and the individual), is considered the Correct Way. It's > really best not to worry about it, grit your teeth, and hand-write the > headers every single freaking time you reply, so as to make it behave > properly. Or use a mail program that supports the RFC 2369 header fields for mailing list commands, or one that supports "reply to recipient", or one which can be configured per-list for what reply defaults to locally (so at least you only have to do it once). With this many alternatives already available, it seems excessive to throw away the ability to reply to the sender (which is what putting in a reply-to to the list does for most programs). Oh, and there's no need to hand-write the headers, just *delete* the entry for the original sender (much quicker and eaiser than entering the list address by hand). -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b at dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>