Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 25 Aug 1993 10:33:00 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 25 Aug 1993 05:23:36 -0400
Message-Id: <199308250923.AA16080@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5612; Wed, 25 Aug 93 05:22:13 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 9026; Wed, 25 Aug 93 05:24:59 EDT
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1993 10:21:34 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      GEN.ADMIN: Re Reply-To who? (Was: Monthly posting for August,
              1993)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Aug 25 10:33:00 1993
X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET

I vote for the status quo.

To put that in context, the gateway which passes the messages
through to my X.400 system has its own idea about the correspondence
between the header fields in the two different formats.
At least with the current setting, I get to see who sent
the original message.  I don't, however, have any way of telling
whether an incoming message was for me privately or sent
to a whole mailing list.

If I can persuade the gateway administrators to find a more
straightforward mapping between the two formats, I might discover
that reply-to the whole list had advantages for me,
although I think that's unlikely.

co'o mi'e .i,n.