From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1He2m7-0001sj-D6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:32:15 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l3I5UtBx004308; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:30:55 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l3I5T43u001965 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:29:04 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB68C6421B for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:29:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: 0.267 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.267 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.986, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVNlhTVd+34U for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41CC64EC6 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1He2Xl-0001Bc-Tp for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:17:26 +0200 Received: from 82.152.195.77 ([82.152.195.77]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:17:25 +0200 Received: from slong by 82.152.195.77 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:17:25 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Reply-To Munging [was Re: Re: baselayout-2 and volumes (raid, lvm, crypt, etc)] Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:11:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20070413124143.629296ec@uberlaptop.development.ltl> <1176483411.8883.20.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> <200704131306.14763.vapier@gentoo.org> <461FFA7D.9040901@gentoo.org> <1176723971.3274.2.camel@vertigo.twi-31o2.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.152.195.77 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 1f09a2c5-7fa1-4c54-b4f5-edfe3e276672 X-Archives-Hash: b11ae9eb1eab12239bb4bdd5de19f11f Chris Gianelloni wrote: > Steve Long wrote: >> But seriously.. why don't you guys switch off reply-to munging, already?! >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_120444.xml > > http://dev.gentoo.org/~wolf31o2/xml/reply-to.xml for those of you that > care. > Thank you. "Some of the most popular mail clients in use do not support a Reply-To-List function. This causes problems for the users of these clients and has resulted in Reply-To munging being used to reduce complexity for these users." I'm more than happy to modify my client etc, but I still think it might be a good idea for this list, to make it less likely that people will fire off rapid replies in the heat of the moment. (Unlikely, I know.. ;) Or at least that those replies will only be read by the other party, thus reducing the noise in here. After all it's a dev list, and assumes more knowledge than the user m-l so asking people to use a client with Reply-To-List, iff they want to participate, isn't a big deal imo. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list