From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:26:10 -0400 (EDT)
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. Some folks are less tolerant that others of what they consider brain death, I suppose. Of course, I imagine it seems less strident to me because the author is not accusing *me* of the aforesaid brain death. 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. . . . Other than the fail-safe argument, both settings have their advantages and disadvantages of nearly equal annoyances . . . "Fail-safe" may be the best argument, but frankly, I'm surprised that more people (you included) aren't persuaded by the "least surprise" and "destroys information" (i.e. the original "Reply-To:" header) arguments. Based on what I know (or think I know) about good software design, these three arguments together strike me as compelling. Furthermore, header munging would defeat your antispam hack: Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Except that this probably isn't saving you much, as your "From:" address is not obfuscated.) In short, "Can't we all just get along?" I'm happy with the status quo; 'nuff said. -- Bob Rogers http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/ _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
