X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:27:44 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: List configuration? Message-ID: <20100429172744.GB428@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20100429152515 DOT GA30359 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <3BABE852C6A04208860DFAE0FBBE246F AT cit DOT wayne DOT edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BABE852C6A04208860DFAE0FBBE246F@cit.wayne.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:37:49AM -0400, Lee Maschmeyer wrote: >Hmm. Replying to Christopher did set the header to the list, That's because *I* made a personal choice to set the Reply-To. >but more than once I wrote to a person when I thought I was writing to >the list. Not long ago somebody else's name got affixed to my reply >because the recipient was a person instead of the list and that person >had to massage it. That was unfair to that other person. I guess it is well past time that we had all-pile-on discussion about Reply-To, email clients, and reply-all but hasn't it occurred to you that, given the age of this mailing list, all of this would have been hashed and rehashed long ago? cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple