From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03276731C2 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f176.google.com with SMTP id j18so26631501ioe.2 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:21:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:organization :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P8mfIyTHOXDGHwQ1+emWbNGODDL83nNXlQWUwTTrObs=; b=1KFK/obB7CJIl967MRvYrjvzGHPAIFLslxW2pCSlzUYaxiZfcVszV+LWQmgQg4L75u mu1eho4GDh8/Nc05OwccGeV6PExU43F7lAagFcMOaqhdW7NvrU4b8d86HZJFlWImTuSl w1OcjIkjJq2sQS3Ph8npd5Hims88OW1AdtRk0xWosr+DaAjlUh1RzdW6MDoo9Vej7yAp 94uqvYWqPh60eIO7Omb7evj2sNCnOII7T9gOf+G3zMYlmS3KzLOvLDGxmismk+Zh8efU Fd/GC61N1ajdCpvuhssAJPukwFkRNHkrJ3UXnHwqwVF45Slg7zj6CwJ9oBxEunLxAnjE TFRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P8mfIyTHOXDGHwQ1+emWbNGODDL83nNXlQWUwTTrObs=; b=NgEbPfszT9QTW6Zz1AVtVguyZbKh6A/YAtsvwa3deeAS2YGxE18Vw/RMeeSeuqjDLm X2Vbq9gaQOlD8zr8A9/P9DkC7IQvZIO/B3E1RDvsEpP/t/46nQpp7pUH/PNRDMT5uKMw joNdTeG40hliMHkkwYEK68LpFdvasUWeZeVJQ3RDJO6Bjzy2NbtvJ1XoShTO8nuBRHiU qAya5KwIWqTK62uSlf100HcYjfb2CVTKNwhgzFJHFOb25BErJ0WOOmGkdnOLtRmiVlWc JwbRCD5Bmkpu5XWMqLRBnIrj+l+WfZEjL6YIpUDtrIIeG07kJnpSwhdctljJen3lgAZl 8/Ng== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kXzQhCkzi9PlLFtjWzgdT7QDDE/frZlc6WnR0ZIoWOT/g9a3PFMGKsCkb7s7RcBN9B X-Received: by 10.107.132.81 with SMTP id g78mr4890184iod.227.1486668093469; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8DC0B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.220.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w75sm45203itc.21.2017.02.09.11.21.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:21:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1486668089.13854.119.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org, Michael Halstead Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 20:21:29 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1486660318.13854.105.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Reply-To (was: Re: [meta-oe][PATCH 1/4] lvm2: remove unbuildable 2.02.138) X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 19:21:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 09:17 -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > BTW, do all mails from openembedded-devel have Reply-To: > > set? openembedded-core > > doesn't seem to have that. > > yeah I guess reply-all will send to all but I never tried that Depends on the client, but typically "Reply-To" sends a very strong message that the only intended reply is to the given address. For example, I always do group-reply in Evolution, and for this list it only picks the list address, as it should. See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Does anyone remember why the list is set up this way? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.