ssh to my computer behind NAT

[Tim]

On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 10:26 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Lists aren't supposed to mung the reply-to header as it supposed to be
> for the sender to direct replies to a different address.

I think you'd find it hard to prove that they're not supposed to.  But
whether it's desirable, or not, is yet another matter.

On most mailing lists (every single one that I've ever joined over the
last umpteen years), the list is meant to be used by replying to the
list.  Setting the reply-to to the list has been the easiest way of
achieving this, as most people don't know a thing about replying to
alternative addresses, and many clients don't offer the feature (at all,
or in a useful and understandable way).  Unfortunately mail clients are
an awful lot worse than usenet clients.

None of which has ever prevented any poster from replying privately to
someone.  Those who've wanted to do that have realise that all they need
to do is change the TO address to the person that they want to receive
it.

If this list stopped putting itself in the reply-to field, this list
would become like all those useless "help" websites you see when
googling for an answer (where you find pages where someone has asked
what you want to know, and there are no responses for you to see).
There'd be emails asking how to do something, and very few replies would
be made back in public.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.