This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU
- From: "Hughes, Bill" <Bill dot Hughes at cox dot co dot uk>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:09:31 -0000
- Subject: RE: (now OT) cygwin processes and system'ed processes using 100% CPU
It may be Bad Form to respond to oneself but :
> Sent: 28 January 2004 13:44 From: Hughes, Bill
> > Sent: 28 January 2004 13:18 From: Dave Korn
> > 3>It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she
> > will direct a
> > response.
> > Again, I'll agree that munging shouldn't be automatic,
> and shouldn't
> > overwrite any *existing* Reply-to header.
> But unless I'm mistaken (which I may well be) by not
> explicitly setting a
> reply-to header the sender has chosen for the reply to go to
> the address in
> the From header, so you would be going against the posters wishes.
AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO
For systems which automatically generate address lists for
replies to messages, the following recommendations are made:
o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of
any problems in transport or delivery of the original
messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the
"From" field mailbox should be used.
o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used
automatically, in a recipient's reply message.
o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should
go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to
the address(es) indicated in the "From" field.
o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field,
the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated
in the "From" field.
Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with
the person that initiated the message transfer. In such
cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address.
This recommendation is intended only for automated use of
originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies
may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is
up to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what
additional facilities will be provided.
> > And I think the cygwin list by providing the posters with
> > every kind of option gets it most right of all.
> Or is it as sign of cgf admitting defeat and bowing to the
> pressure :-)
Having thought about this I agree with Dave. I now regard it as helping out
those people who have simple/broken email clients and would like to have the
ability to set Reply To on a custom basis but can't. Well done again cgf.
This would be a good way to go with more mailing lists.
P.S. Apologies all for the numerous spelling and grammatical errors in the
previous post :-(
This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely
for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we
are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications
passing through our network.
The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless
specified within the message.
The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any
attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses.
If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html