Apologies for miss-sent mail

[Henrik Horneber]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Peter Garrett
<peter.garrett at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:36:01 +0200
> Henrik Horneber <horneber at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher
>> <christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
>> > Nothing is up...except maybe why sounder alone is configured to not use
>> > the sounder list address in the Reply-To: but instead sticks in the
>> > poster's address.
>> >
>>
>> FWIW, the German ubuntu ML also has this peculiar err
>> let's-call-it-a-feature. This comes up regularly in discussions, leads
>> to responses like 'oh god, not again' and 'finally, some one else who
>> makes some sense', and then never gets resolved properly.
>> Unless you happen to feel that installing client add-ons is a proper
>> solution (which I don't).
>
> I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the age-old "Reply to:
> Munging" issue... Examples of responses to this issue, which keeps on
> surfacing:
> [..]

Unfortunately (for starting a flamewar) you are correct.

> I haven't looked into this deeply, but it appears to be pretty much a
> client-side issue. Some mailers allow a choice of "group" or
> "individual" replies, some don't.
>

So, us webmail users have to either eat it or hassle our providers? :)

> IIRC there have been plenty of flame wars about mailing list
> configuration as a result of this issue, with both sides *absolutely*
> sure that their view is *completely* correct ;-)
>

That's what I was trying to express.

> Flame war, anyone?

Only on matters of importance. Like emacs and vi.

H