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.
Read it. A rather emotionally charged bit of text. The only bit that was really presented in the form of a logical argument was that changing "Reply-To" to Group could cause Fail-Catastrophic scenarios, while leaving "Reply-To" set to the original individual poster would result in a Fail-Safe scenario. If someone accidently does a Reply-To to the wrong recipient, it should fail in a safe manner. Accidentally sending a private message to the entire group could have negative consequences. Accidentally sending a group message to only the original poster can be easily fixed by going into your "sent" folder and fowarding it to the list. but, I've worked as an engineer on aircraft and satelites and I've flown airplanes and helicopters, so I've got years of training that stresses the fail-safe design of things. Other than the fail-safe argument, both settings have their advantages and disadvantages of nearly equal annoyances. and the arguments for and against brings to mind Ambrose Bierce's "Devils Dictionary" and his definition for: CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. In short, "Can't we all just get along?" -- "Impatient Perl" => Perl geek in about a week. http://www.greglondon.com/iperl/index.html Available in GNU-FDL, HTML, PDF, and paperback. _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
