On Wednesday 23 February 2005 01:25 pm, "Dave Nebinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Andrea, I'm sorry if you felt flogged by folks wanting the old modus operandi in place; you were right in the first place to have fixed the 'reply to'.
Although I've just sent a similar email, I want to jump in here with a "me too". Andrea, there are some users out here that realise you were doing the right thing and we applaud you for it. It's unfortunate that this list-at-large doesn't seem to want to fix things that are broken.
I find the whole issue being seen as black-or-white is a problem in itself.
I accept that header-munging is incorrect behaviour, however it solves some real usage issues, albeit in an imperfect fashion.
Supermount used to do that too (solve a real issue in a less than ideal fashion).
Maybe instead of arguing about "to mung or not to mung", we should be trying to find or create an alternative that solves the issues in a way more satisfying to everyone-- in other words, fix what's actually 'broken' (whether that be fixing one of the solutions, educating the users, or doing something completely new), rather than argue over which imperfect solution is less imperfect than the other.
Holly -- [email protected] mailing list
