On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, John Abreau wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 23:08, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> > BR> This is not a good idea. See
> > BR> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a thorough essay on
> > BR> why this is bad.
> >
> > and there are arguments on why it is good. just another religious war
> > with no correct side as each ways has good and bad points.
>
> There are valid arguments for both positions, so the best approach is
> to pick one and stick with it.
Actually, by far the most enlightened response to this debate is an
approach that I've seen done with exactly one list: run two parallel
lists, one with reply-to set, one without. Users can pick whether they
want (list) for the "evil" reply-to version, or (list-pure) for the
"non-evil" no-reply-to version.
Amazingly, once this solution was found, the whole pointless debate
simply never happened again. Isn't that nice?
For whatever reason, this isn't how things are usually done though.
I understand that the London.pm crackfueled Siesta list manager allows
for per-subscriber reply-to settings, but I don't know if Siesta is yet
in a state that would make it worth using. That would be even better
than the forked list approach though if it comes to maturity...
--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
np: 'Naima (Alternate Version 1)'
by John Coltrane
from 'Giant Steps'
_______________________________________________
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
