On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 06:02:09 PM Anders Holmström via luv-talk wrote:
On 2015-11-16 06:26, Tim Connors via luv-talk wrote:
[...] And my LUV folder is now fugly with redundant department of redundancy style redundant information that everyone is from "via luv-talk".
+1 Adding "via luv-list" is a mistake, regardless of the merits, or otherwise, of munging the headers. I understand it's a way of saying "look! I've screwed with the headers" but is not necessary.
From: "Anders Holmström via luv-talk" <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> From: "Anders Holmström" <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> So you're saying that of the above 2 options you prefer the second? Mailman doesn't appear to give that as an option, or if it does it's a site wide option not a per-list option. If I had been given a free choice between the 2 I would probably have chosen the second. But it might be that hacking the source is the only way of getting it. If there is a consense of opinion that the second option is the best way to do it then I will consider the option of hacking the source - but note that it's in a language that I don't use much and it may be beyond my skills in that area. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/