From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30067 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2001 17:01:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gnats-devel-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gnats-devel-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30028 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 17:01:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.130.111.12) by sourceware.cygnus.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 17:01:51 -0000 Received: from naos (naos [128.130.111.28]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fAGH1mI11796; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:01:48 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:03:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Yngve Svendsen cc: , "Joseph S. Myers" , Subject: Re: gnatsweb PR status change messages In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20011115012156.05189d30@10.10.1.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2001-q4/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Yngve Svendsen wrote: > Hm. After some more consideration, I have decided that this doesn't look > like the right way to solve the problem. If I am not completely > misunderstanding the problem, wouldn't the correct way to solve this be > to set a correct Reply-To header on these messages? Yes, but apart from being slightly more invasive a patch, my personal experience is that people often ignore the Reply-To while the keep the Cc. (If you prefer the Reply-To, I definitely won't object; we just should try to address this somehow.) Cheers, Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/