On 02-Dec-1997, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > No, please don't muck with reply-to. That's evil. And if I > hadn't lost my disk, I'd have a handy-dandy url for you. Hmmm. Try > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Which, as we have discussed before on this list, is an incorrect assesment of the problem as it applies to the debian lists. 1. We have a policy of no cc:s, but nearly everyone uses them because there is no Reply-To: set. 2. We have information that should be on the list going into private email instead (where it is effectively *lost* to all other developers). 3. We have threads jumping from debian-private to debian-devel because people accidently add the wrong To: or Cc: header by hand after replying to the individual instead of the list. Nothing too confidential has been disclosed yet. 4. We are penalizing people with low-bandwith or high-cost net connections by forcing them to download things multiple times. On the plus side, in the very occasional situations where a "Reply-To:" is useful, we don't munge it. This is useful when you want to reply to someone in person, but their "From:" address doesn't work, or if you want to move a discussion from one mailing list to another (except that if people use "group reply" as advocated by that URL, it will probably just move it to *both* lists). I'd like it to be fixed, but it seems that there are a few people who have strong opinions on the matter, but are not prepared to discuss or fix the problems it causes. -- Tyson Dowd # # Linux versus Windows is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] # Win lose situation. http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~trd # -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .