Re: reply-to set

On Jul 30, 2013 8:24 PM, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > I disagree with noreply addresses on principle. They usually just
> > represent the sender being lazy and not thinking hard enough about
> > where replies should go. Why wouldn't there be a good reason to reply
> > to an announcement? I've often wanted to reply to announcements.
>
> Because the poster of the annoucement may be largely unrelated to its
> content.

That's what reply-to is for.

>
> For a PostgreSQL release announcement, for example, we want anybody who
> has a comment or question to send mail to press(at)postgresql(dot)org, NOT to
> the sysadmin who posted the actual -announce email. Having a noreply@
> mailing address would enforce that.

It would enforce it by totally breaking replies unless the user took manual
intervention.