From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: usotsuki@buric.co (Steve Nickolas)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Mangled and non-mangled TUHS mail lists
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.1710031147250.73049@aneurin.horsfall.org>
References: <20171001032536.GB31930@minnie.tuhs.org>
 <alpine.BSF.2.21.1710021157530.73049@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.1710020117180.6255@waffle.shalott.net>
 <alpine.BSF.2.02.1710020837230.94910@frieza.hoshinet.org>
 <EE7FBA19-0C8A-4138-9E63-C3271BFCB2A8@gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.21.1710031147250.73049@aneurin.horsfall.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1710022218400.43253@frieza.hoshinet.org>

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, David Ryskalczyk wrote:
>
>> For lists the alter the From: line, I prefer if they put the original From: 
>> address in the Cc: line as that means a reply-all goes both to the list and 
>> the originator. However I'm not sure whether this will cause DKIM issues as 
>> well (I haven't dug deep enough).
>
> I really hate it when people use reply-all and are too lazy to edit the 
> recipient list; I get my copy via the list, thank you, and I don't need my 
> own personal copy as well (there's a reason for the Reply-To: header).

For me at least, in such cases, I have never gotten duplicates.

-uso.