On Sat, 11 May 2002 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT) "Mr. Brigham Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding your comment I would have to say that the argument presented > in the document you referenced is spurious for the following reasons. (snip) The reasons for not munging the Reply-To header presented are still valid. There are several different ways to provide a means of easing the ability to reply to a list without breaking existing functionality. For one good idea, take a look at: http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html -- Jamin W. Collins
