From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16kpRi-00073P-00 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:48:18 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <200203121651.g2CGpTK28931@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> References: <200203121651.g2CGpTK28931@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <200203121640.g2CGeRg28441@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <200203121605.g2CG54o27683@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> <32074.1015924653@redhat.com> <6849.1015949674@redhat.com> <15927.1015951511@redhat.com> To: Richard Gooch Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Administrivia. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:59:35 +0000 Message-ID: <17407.1015952375@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca said: > Um, let me be more clear. If I want to bounce emails which, say, have > a high proportion of high-bit characters (guess why:-), I want them to > go to the From: address (i.e. the original sender), not the list > administrator. I think that's a good thing, since I want to apply the > clue-by-four to the sender, and not the list admin. > And formail looks at the From: address nicely, just the way I like it > :-) In that case, it makes some sense, yes. Unless you also obey Reply-To and encounter a list which stupidly sets the Reply-To header to go back to the list - another common combination of idiocies. As long as you don't respond to messages with _NULL_ reverse-path (i.e. error messages), that is. -- dwmw2