On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Sean Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Joshua Juran once stated:
On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Denny wrote:
# include std_reply_to_list_not_enabled_hate
Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful, and blame your mail user agent
for not letting you reply-to-list by default.
So it looks like you can now add mutiple recipients to the "Reply-
To"
field, which should satisfy all concerns.
Maybe.
No, because that still replies to the list by default, which was the
one of the original complaints.
"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Also, RFC 2822 in fact removes the ambiguity:
In April of 2001, the IETF issued af new document, RFC 2822, which
obsoletes RFC 822. In this new RFC, the author addresses the Reply-
To header field in a few places, but the most relevant to this
discussion is the following in section 3.6.2 "Originator fields":
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox
(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.
Your list software is not "the author of the message", so it must
not set or in any way meddle with the Reply-To header field. That
field exists for the author and the author alone. If your list
munges it, you are violating the standard.
“Reply-To” Munging Still Considered Harmful. Really.
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
Josh
P.S. I'm not interested in one-on-one advocacy discussions. If it's
not sent to the list, you won't get a reply. (You know who you are.)
