Stefan Manegold wrote:
My intention was to make your user agent (respectively the mail protocol) send your reply to both the mailing list and myself "even" if you simply say "reply" and not "group-reply"/"reply-all" or the like. I did this by setting the "Reply-To:" header to both the mailing list address and my own address --- I guess, that's how it is supposed to work ;-) (of course, since I am subscribed and do read this mailing-list, I could have omitted my own address from the "Reply-To:" header ...)
Although in the RFC, modern MUAs cannot see it, neither craft messages like that.
MUAs cannot see what? The "Reply-To:" header? 1) That's another (good) reason for me to stick to my old but reliable elm ;-) 2) If the user simply hits "reply" [s]he doesn't have to "see" the "Reply-To:" header; the mail program should of cause adhere to the protocol and act accordingly! 3) A MUA where the user cannot add/modify (custom) headers IMHO doesn't deserve to be called "MUA".
Where are replies to list messages directed? Poster is strongly recommended for most mailing lists. _X_ Poster ___ This list ___ Explicit address ========
Hence, the point is basically: Since mailman does not seem to allow to extend the Reply-To: header, but only to overwrite it, one should better not touch it ... we can of course set it to "This list" anyway --- I'll check this with Sjoerd on Monday...
yes, it should be This list.
I'll check with Sjoerd.
as of when?
now 2 days ago
tarball stable used to compile, will ask whether it still compiles on updated machine. (Fink was run)
Yep, this might be valuable info to localize the problem.
The stable tarbal compiles fine without any problem.
Ok. Could you please ask the user[s] to try also the head of the CVS MonetDB_4-6 branch (i.e., MonetDB 4.6.1 iso. MonetDB 4.6.0 or MonetDB 4.7.1)? Thus we could locate the problem to be either in teh changes between the "released" MonetDB 4.6.0 and the "bug-fixed" MonetDB 4.6.1, or between the "bug-fixed" MonetDB 4.6.1 and the "developed" MonetDB 4.7.1 . (Of course, if the "bug-fixed" MonetDB 4.6.1 fails, too, we still don't know, whether the problem is in the code changes between 4.6.0 & 4.6.1, or rather in the fact that the tarball of th previous is pre-bootstrap, while the latter is a CVS check-out that is to be bootstrap --- Hence, instead of checking out the latest MonetDB_4-6 from CVS, you could also send her/him/them the lastest respective tarball: /ufs/monet/Testing/Stable/MonetDB/.GNU_32-d/Fedora3/MonetDB-4.6.1.tar.gz ) Stefan -- | Dr. Stefan Manegold | mailto:Stefan.Manegold@cwi.nl | | CWI, P.O.Box 94079 | http://www.cwi.nl/~manegold/ | | 1090 GB Amsterdam | Tel.: +31 (20) 592-4212 | | The Netherlands | Fax : +31 (20) 592-4312 |