Vince Sabio writes:
> When the NEXT person does a "group"
> reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And
> all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows.
I agree. That is a persuasive counter-argument in favor of Reply-To
munging.
I don't agree that one point is sufficient to tip the balance.
If it had been sufficiently persuasive, then the additional ad
hominem attack would have been unnecessary.
If somebody is aware of a document that argues the opposite case
-- without resorting to throwing insults at me -- I'd be glad to
link to it. Just let me know.
By the way, note this message is addressed only to the list. I
did my Elm g)roup reply, and used an xterm cut-n-paste to move the
Cc: to the To:. It's a little more work, but way easier than trying
to reply to the author on a munged list.
--
Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development http://www.unicom.com/
Has your mail server been spamproofed? http://maps.vix.com/tsi/
Outlaw junk email * Support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/
"Sure it's working, but couldn't you shine it up some?"
