[ABQ-pm] new mailing list test
allanemord at laguna-industries.com
Wed Oct 12 16:35:11 PDT 2005
I hadn't given this issue much thought - until now. As an administrator
and a user, I have side with Linda on this one.
The less we change base data the better off we are. When we automate
"changes" or more correcty translations, we lose sight of the source
data both in content and true source. Do not "munge" it. Keep it clean.
Keep it simple.
Laguna Industries, Inc
PO box 1001
Laguna, NM 87026
voice: (505) 839 6349
fax: (505) 552-7642
>>> "Linda L. Julien" <leira at MIT.EDU> 10/11/2005 16:12:31 >>>
> Can you set mailman to change the return address to the list rather
> than the individual who sent the message?
Technically: Yes, easily.
Religiously: Well, I'm not so sure.
I'm one of those people who feels very very strongly that mailing
should not modify the Reply-To header that is set by the sender. I
believe that the RFCs support this.
For a well-written explanation of this side of the debate, see
'"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful' at
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html. I find the "Principle
of Least Damage" argument particularly compelling, as I've seen that
sort of situation entirely too often.
That being said, if the members of the list have an overwhelming
to have it go the other way, I'll back down, though you may catch me
the occasional soapbox.
So, what does this mean? A poll. Eh, the last question was closed
> If not, procmail will be happy to do it for me, but I thought I'd
I think that's a great option, actually (says the person who until
recently had a .emacs file that did much the same).
I'd love to hear what others have to say on the topic.
Albuquerque-pm mailing list
Albuquerque-pm at pm.org
More information about the Albuquerque-pm