On Wednesday 23 February 2005 06:17 pm, Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:54:51 -0600 > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > No, that's not the best thing. It break emails that use the reply-to > > header for it's original (and standards-compliant) behavior. It may > > be easy, but that doesn't make it right. > > > > Please read, if you haven't already, the document Andrea linked. > > And then read this one and then argue about it forever! > > http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
This document does not refute the "Can't Find My Way Back Home" point in reply-to-considered-harmful. The composer of the email is given "first rights" to the Reply-To header, munging it causes information loss (and it can be important information). I have no problem with list software *adding* the Reply-To header, but overwriting an existing one is a recipe for disaster. Also a quote from http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html : "But the arguments in [reply-to-useful] very easily refutable [http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt], as I wrote in the following post when participating to a thread on the mailman lists." -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy -- [email protected] mailing list
