Re: reply-to set
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: reply-to set |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HMnfbM34aL6di1Ui6pDnLgMgG9tfRmhesDLW1adoBz4mQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: reply-to set (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > There are always bad mail hosts who send any bounce message to FROM (or > REPLY-TO) instead of any other address. Yes, but setting reply-to won't make those any worse. We should really ban any such hosts from our lists. > In general, I think reply-to for announce should be set to a black hole > address (e.g. do-not-reply@postgresql.org). There's never a good reason > to reply to an -announce message. I disagree with noreply addresses on principle. They usually just represent the sender being lazy and not thinking hard enough about where replies should go. Why wouldn't there be a good reason to reply to an announcement? I've often wanted to reply to announcements. -- greg
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: