 | | Re: REPLYTO field. —Todd Lehman
|
| | | (...) Lesser of two evils: It's better for that to happen accidentally than for the reverse to happen accidentally (sending a reply to the whole list when you think you're talking to only one person)! Of course, the ultimate geek thing would be if (...) (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: REPLYTO field. —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Another couple of reasons: If the 'Reply-To:' header is set to the list, then the probability goes way up that auto-reply handlers (i.e, "I'm on vacation" notices and so fort) will find their way to the list when they should have gone instead (...) (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: REPLYTO field. —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Which seems silly because spam-harvesters can (and probably do) read the reply-to header as well as the from one. (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: REPLYTO field. —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. But people still do it (and .NOSPAM. and a zillion other forms). --Todd (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: REPLYTO field. —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Speaking of the ultimate geek thing: one of my friends has solved this problem by setting up a procmail filter which discards messages with bodies with identical md5sums.... (24 years ago, 12-Aug-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
