On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Karen Cravens wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2001, at 0:22, Karen Cravens wrote:
>
> > Not only that, but there's certainly a potential for abuse of the
> > Reply-To misfeature, unless the software is bright enough to look
> > for the sort of thing that... well, let's find out, shall we?
>
> Well, that answers *that* question.
Actually, it points out one of the reasons why munging the Reply-To:
header is a really bad idea. It makes use of the Reply-To header for
people who need it impossibly. It also makes it impossibly to send a
post to the list asking to reply to sender only (and using the reply
to header to "enforce" it).
Please read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
One of the most important points is that it's much MUCH worse to
accidentially send a private mail to the whole list (thousands of
people will see it) than the other way around.
On lists with "low-tech" people reply-to munging might make sense;
but people clued enough to be using Perl are generally powerusers
enough to appreciate the better flexibility from not munging the
mails.
I realize that the beginners lists might be relatively more
"low-tech" than the almost 100 other public lists at perl.org; but
on all of those the consensus is to not mess with the headers and I
am not going to introduce confusion by operating them in technically
different ways.
> Hope anybody who replies to that knows how to use their email
> client effectively, or that the unsub is also verified...
It is.
> Further exercises in how evil *that* sort of thing could get are left to
> the reader... I am going *no* further down this road.
If people abuse the list we'll deal with the abuse.
- ask ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
