On 10/18/07, Jeff Macdonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Au contraire contraire, please do not. Abuse of "Reply All" causes >> List Header Cancer! > > Couldn't this be solved by the list setting Reply-To: to the list?
No. Some MUAs still include all addresses if the "Reply All" function is invoked. > And yes, I know it considered bad ... Some hate "Reply-To munging", some like it. There's no consensus. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml A million years ago, this list took a vote, and the "harmful" faction won. I'm really uninterested in repeating the debate unless there is significant evidence a change in opinion has occurred, and AFAICT, no such evidence exists. > Hmmm... if a message has multiple Reply-To's, why not have the MUA > reply to all of them? RFC-2822 does allow multiple addresses to be specified in the Reply-To header, so I suppose list software could add to an existing Reply-To, rather than replacing it. But that just makes the whole "How to handle list replies" picture even muddier, so I'm not sure how that helps. And it still doesn't prevent List Header Cancer. -- Ben -- DISCLAIMER: Everything I say could be a total lie. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
