On Feb 5, 2004, at 4:01 AM, John Buttery wrote:
If the whole concept of information being irretrievably destroyed by clobbering Reply-To: willy-nilly isn't a compelling reason to you, I'm not sure what else to say.
This issue goes away if we could stop trying to use reply-to for too many things. What we're really trying to do is make a bi-state operation tri-state, and bad things happen.
What reply-to coercion is trying to do is fake "reply to list". That, in reality, is its own operation. Mail clients ought to support reply/reply-all/reply-to-list (but with one or two exceptions, don't).
And to properly support reply-to-list, you need that information in the headers, which is done by the list-* headers mailman now provides. Which is why we grimace everyone says "icky! delete!" because that's how we'll ultimately get mail client authors to fix this right.....
------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
This message was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
