mail to individuals

[Odd]

Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 15:36 +0200, Odd wrote:
>> Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 21:14 +0200, Odd wrote:
>>>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>>> Michael Haney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The response from most of the support group to my problem is similar
>>>>>> to the response of some people in this group over the email issue,
>>>>>> they suggest replacing the monitor just like people here suggest
>>>>>> replacing the email client rather than facing up to the real issue at
>>>>>> hand.  They don't want to be bothered with being fair to every user
>>>>>> who happens to use their email client of choice because in their minds
>>>>>> the one they use is the best and everyone else who doesn't do it their
>>>>>> way is wrong.
>>>>> OK - but YOU want to break _my_ client's standard's compliant
>>>>> handling of list mail, by putting in a Reply-To header.  Doing
>>>>> something wrong because everybody else is doing something wrong,
>>>>> doesn't make it right.  So sure, go ahead and use a broken client
>>>>> if you want, but don't demand that the list be crippled because
>>>>> you insist on doing so.
>>>  
>>>> How would the list be crippled by adding a Reply-To: header?
>>>> It would still include the List-Post: header.
>>> Args Odd, you're driving me nuts.  Reply-To is to be set by the
>>> original sender of a message to direct private responses to a specific
>>> mail account.
>> 99.99% of users don't care.
> 
> So 99.99% of users are wrong, they ressemble lemmings that follow the easy
> way.

Computers are supposed to make things easier for us. If you want
hard, go back to pen and pencil.

> As long as I have a brain to think with, I refuse to join a majority
> on provable issues (even if you call me fascist which in my case would be
> more of an insult than you can imagine).

Why would I call you a fascist? I never call anyone that, except
for the ones that truly deserve it, like neo-nazis and David Irving.

>>> Abusing it by mailing list software as you suggest or
>>> by procmail as Amadee does is still violating the sender's intentions.
>> No. Just a very, very, very small minority that care about such
>> things. 99.99% of senders have no intentions at all with regards
>> to the Reply-TO: header. They don't even know it exists.
> 
> Lemmings again.

Go back to pen and pencil. Then you're certainly not a lemming. But
I think you're a lemming too since you insist on using a computer like
everyone else.

>>> As an example I'm setting it again to redirect responses, and yes
>>> that mailing list is functional - just try it.
> 
> Sorry for the mistake, it's only set in my followup.
> 
>> It's functional, but does not work at optimum functionality.
> 
> This statement tops the other ones in sillyness, you didn't even try that
> list otherwise I as it's owner had seen any attempt to subscribe or post.

Sorry, I mistakenly thought you were talking about this list.

-- 
Odd