Hi, >>"Tyson" == Tyson Dowd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMHO overriding an existing Reply-To is a bad idea. Tyson> I think it's bad that mailers don't handle mailing lists Tyson> well. When that support is common, there will be little reason Tyson> for munging Reply-To. But now, it solves some problems, and has Tyson> little cost (apart from being less pleasing). If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken* behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing because some mailers are broken out there? If your mailer is broken, protest to the author, don't ask other people to break email conventions to cater to broken mailers. >> With your solution, how do you propose to deal with the case where >> someone has a good reason for using a Reply-To ? Tyson> I can only see two good reasons - one, moving the topic to Tyson> another mailing list (which won't work everyone else doesn't Tyson> prune the CCs), or two, if your "From" doesn't match your email Tyson> address. On announcement lists, you can use Reply-To more Tyson> creatively to put a PR handling address, but debian-devel is Tyson> not an announcement list. Yes, but there are times when discussion is taken off-line. You break the reply-to address, and people can no longer be reached off-line. Such gratitous breakage just for broken mailers? Tyson> So if your email system is broken so that the From: of outgoing Tyson> mail won't be accepted as incoming mail, and so you use a Tyson> reply-to, I suppose this would cause trouble. Sorry, broken email is not the only reason to have a reply-to address. And anybody's email setup, as long as it conforms to electronic mail standards and convention, is none of our business. We *shoul* *not* break it. Tyson> Considering most mailing lists seem to be configured to reject Tyson> email that isn't "From" the person on the list, I find this is Tyson> a pretty feeble argument. But it's the strongest argument for Tyson> not munging Reply-Tos on mailing lists. Even the mail RFC (I Tyson> forget the number) suggests using Reply-Tos for mailing lists. Chapter and verse, please. This may be the most valid of your arguments. Quote the RFC, and you may well have a point. Tyson> With the current situation, what are the solutions to the 4 Tyson> problems I outlined? -- and what is the likelihood of these Tyson> solutions actually solving problems (as opposed to the "spend Tyson> 30 seconds pruning your headers" solution, which given the Tyson> number of CCs on this list, is clearly not workable). I think people should get decent mail user agents. I never have to spend time pruning CC's. (and when I use other mail user agents, I _do_ trim the headers to follow good ettiquette). I also think it is bad policy to break standards to cater to rude people (those who do not follow good net ettiquette). manoj -- For people who like that kind of book, that is the kind of book they will like. --anonymous Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .