> Now, I have found arguments in favour at:
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
'New! RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing"'
it says 'A somewhat different use may be of some help', which means
it also may be not.
'The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'
so?
'Reply-To Munging Adds Something'
'Reply-To gives the respondant an option which would not otherwise
exist: namely the ability to reply only to the list.'
that's a laugh for everyone using a reasonable MUA. so just because
some users or MUAs are not able to do somthing trivial you're gonna
change headers?
'It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers'
that's per definition of 'reasonable', isn't it? in this part the
author suggests to get MUA-developpers to integrate the ability to
handle munged headers instead of integrating the ability to handle
mailing lists in a reasonable way. again just a laught.
'Principle of Least Total Work'
ist just a wild guess, YMMV.
'People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes'
this was and any other, so?
sorry, imho just forget that page.....
> IMHO, it is useful and it saves me time when processing email in "elm".
> I like it on mailing lists that do add a Reply-To: header.
as said before, get a reasonable MUA able to handle mailing lists
efficiently (like mutt for example).
--
MfG/best regards, helmut springer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
