Reply to: not set right?

[Duston, Hal]

Brian,

I like it set up this way, although I don't know 
if Mike was aware of it initially, and there was 
some dissension before.

For some advocacy see
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
and
http://zseem.ids.bielsko.pl/qmail/koobera/www/proto/replyto.html
and
http://oswg.org/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_US.ISO_8859-1/articles/mladvice/mladvic
e.html#AEN172

And a discussion of this topic.
http://www.unicom.com/BBS/bbs_forum.cgi?forum=replyto

Look in our archives http://www.kclug.org/archive/2000/jul/ 
on the 4th and 5th of July under the topic of 
"Block Tom Margrave Please" (Hi Tom!) for some discussion 
we had on this topic.  The Reply-to munging was a contributing 
factor in that incident.

Hal Duston
Application Developer
913-906-4490

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Kelsay [mailto:bkelsay at askpioneer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 9:56 AM
> To: 'kclug at kclug.org'
> Subject: Reply to: not set right?
> 
> 
> I saw a msg. from Hal last week regarding the Reply to being 
> set to the
> senders name, apparently this is still happening.  Is this how we want
> Majordomo set up?  I have seen way less discussion in the 
> last week or so in
> response to postings, this could be why.
>