[TAG] OpenGL hangs my system

[Rick Moen]

Let me try to make sense out of this stuff:

> Well, this is interesting:
> 
> > Reply-To: rick at deirdre.net, The Answer Gang <tag at linuxgazette.net>

Right then.  Let's review what Reply-To is all about.  We start with
addresse A, B, C, and D.  Address "D" happens to have a mailing list
mechanism behind it (of which A, B, and C are subscribers), but mailing
lists have no recognition as special objects in SMTP.  Let's say that D
does not munge Reply-To or do anything especially wacky.

Let's say I'm A.   I send a message to D.  I know that I'm going to be
picking up my personal mail from an alternate account, A' ("A prime").
So, I send:

   From: A
   To: D
   Reply-To: A'

The mailing list software at address D knows that it's to generate
copies of all received pieces of mail (arriving at D) with no other
changes other than substituting the address of each subscriber in place
of "D", and listing itself as sender.  So, it sends out three mails:

   From: A
   To: D
   Reply-To: A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for A)

   From: A
   To: D
   Reply-To: A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for B)

   From: A
   To: D
   Reply-T: A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for C)

Recipient B reads his copy and decides to reply just to user A, so 
he picks the reply-to-sender function in his MUA (the one that
technopeasants call the "reply function").  If the Reply-To had not been
present, this would have resulted:

   From: B
   To: A

Because of the Reply-To, however, he creates this:

   From: B
   To: A'

Later, B decides he wants to also send a reply back to the entire gang.
So, he calls up the list's copy of A's posting, and picks reply-to-all
in his MUA (the function about which technopeasants say "huh?" when you
refer to it).  If the Reply-To had not been present, this would have
resulted:

   From: B
   To: D, A

Because of the Reply-To, however, he creates this:

   From: B
   To: D, A'

The Reply-To header is A's method of indicating where he wants _direct_
replies to go to, rather than to the address he's sending from.

The mailing list receives a copy of B's mail, and creates these:

   From: B
   To: D, A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for A, in 
addition to the separate copy for A')

   From: B
   To: D, A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for B, in 
addition to the separate copy for A')

   From: B
   To: D, A'
(but delivered with an envelope header dropping it off for C, in 
addition to the separate copy for A')


So, I guess the effect we saw from Mailman _is_ the correct way of
implementing the setting entered into the admin screens.  Whether that
setting is desirable is debatable.  But fortunately, my mutt
configuration can deal with just about any list configuration
intelligently, so I don't care much.  ;->