Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:29:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: Dave Korn <dk AT artimi DOT com>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU
In-Reply-To: <NUTMEGlT2NqFJ3sl3xb00000038@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0401280921030.5576@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <NUTMEGlT2NqFJ3sl3xb00000038 AT NUTMEG DOT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
>
> > *sigh*  No, that's how mailing lists are supposed to work.
> > Lists where the ML software forces the Reply-To to the list
> > address are broken.  See
> > <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
>
>   Without having much opinion myself on how things should be done for the
> cygwin list, I'll just observe that that article is not a balanced review
> but a one-sided polemic based on a false dichotomy.
> [snip]
>   Yet in real life, people are *always* saying "Don't Cc me, just reply to
> the list"; the author of that article skates entirely over the issue that
> his "Reply to all" option spams the original poster with pointless
> duplicates if the original poster is a list subscriber.

I'd just like to point out that in most cases when *I* said the above
phrase on this list, I got a copy of the message *despite* having set the
Reply-To header.  The above article doesn't address (and doesn't attempt
to address) mailers that *ignore* the Reply-To header altogether.
	Igor
P.S. The author objects to *blindly* munging the Reply-To header (with
which I wholeheartedly agree).  As you mentioned, he expresses no opinion
one way or another about *elective* munging (cheers to CGF for that).

-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/