From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marcin Slusarz Subject: Re: reply-to header Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:42:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20091230194245.GB10600@joi.lan> References: <91752840912301100lcaaea9dibdf9aaa0aa893933@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <91752840912301100lcaaea9dibdf9aaa0aa893933-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nouveau-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org Errors-To: nouveau-bounces-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org To: Xavier Cc: nouveau List-Id: nouveau.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 08:00:57PM +0100, Xavier wrote: > Afaik the absence of that header is the reason that the reply button > in mail clients or in gmail answers to the sender rather than to the > mailing list. > Does anyone know why that header is not included ? > I consider it a must have for any mailing list, without reply-to it's > quite impractical. and what about people who are not subscribed? with "reply-to" header would "reply" still cc them? > Or is everyone used to use reply-all or something, which includes the > ML in CC, and no one does the same mistake than me ? i always reply-to-all, because... > Maybe the problem is just me, as I only used mailing lists that filled > reply-to correctly before. ... I have an opposite experience, but maybe it's just me ;)