Re: pgsql-patches considered harmful

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If this is chosen as the preferred path, we could get the list bot to
>>>> add "Reply-To: pghackers" in pgsql-patches postings to help push
>>>> discussions there. I'd vote for doing the same in pgsql-committers,
>>>> which also gets its share of non-null discussion content.
>>>
>>> that is a very easy and quick change ... but wasn't doing that brought
>>> up before and alot of ppl were against that?
>>>
>>> If nobody objects within, say, the next 24 hours ... ? I'll enabled
>>> that one both ...
>>>
>>
>> Don't be surprised if there are objections - this is one of those things
>> like emacs vs vi that stirs up religious debate.
>
> If we change Reply-To:, does it prevent replies to the original author?
> If so, that seems like a problem, particularly if they are not
> subscribed to the patches list.

The Reply-To: header is added to other heads ... in Pine, at least, I have
the option to honor, or disregard, the Reply-To ... I generally honor it,
but there is nothing stop'ng someone from disregarding it, and sending to
the original poster ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664