Setup of DNS caching name server for home server
ignored_mailbox at yahoo.com.au
Sun Sep 27 12:54:09 UTC 2009
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 20:11 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I disagree. In general you should use reply to all, and if you want to
> reply privately to the sender you should use reply.
You can disagree all you like, that doesn't make it right. If you want
to participate in mailing lists, and not rub people up the wrong way,
you ought to learn how it all works.
In general, messages don't have a reply-to header, and replies go to the
from address. And it doesn't matter whether there's any CC addresses,
as well; replies don't go to CC addresses by default, *you* do something
like that by personal choice as something special (i.e. different from
When there is a reply-to header, replies go to that, *instead*. And
again, it doesn't matter about other headers, it's a *special* reply
that you do by choice to reply differently.
Reply to all, on those clients that have it, is a *special* function to
reply to a message *abnormally*, and what it actually will do will
depend on the client in question (e.g. include the CC addresses in the
reply, most likely, but it could behave otherwise).
Replying to the from address on a message with a reply-to header is an
*abnormal* way to reply, and should not happen when you use the normal
reply function. The normal reply function should post to the address
that replies are *normally* meant to go to, as I've just outlined above
(from, or reply-to, as per usual expectations of what they're meant
for). It's how they're *supposed* to be used.
A CC address (or list of addresses) shows who else got the message, it's
not an instruction about anything else. You're not *meant* to reply to
them, normally. You can, but you're not instructed to. It merely means
these people saw the message too.
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
More information about the users