At 2:06 PM -0600 11/19/98, David W. Tamkin wrote:
> 1. Clobbering Reply-To: destroys any Reply-To: address that the poster
> supplied, often making it impossible to send a private response when one
I'm of the opinion, by the way, that list software should strip a
reply-to from an incoming message before distribution, whether or not
it coerces its own reply-to. First, it can be very confusing to end
users, and second, it can lead to all sorts of problems and/or pimps.
> I won't contradict Miles Fidelman's position that some lists are better off
> one way and some the other.
One thing I think is *very* important, is consistency. I think if
you're running a number of lists on a server, they really ought to be
set up the SAME way, unless they're completely independent of each
other of you have a fairly knowledgable group of users. Because one
thing that really, really drives new users crazy is the "well, it
worked that way yesterday" thing, because stuff magically cahnges out
from under them and they don't know why.
We should probably keep in mind that people who deal with small, stable
lists and/or lists with more experienced sets of users can get away
with things that people with open lists, lists that turn over
subscribers, or lists that have/cater-to newer, less experienced net
users can do. When you're dealing with people who don't know how to
de-coerce a reply-to, it's a lot different than dealing with people who
simply find it a pain in the neck. Of course, as the net continues to
mainstream, lists that used to be fairly technologically sophisticated
in their subscriber base will find this creeping up behind them.
--
Chuq Von Rospach (Hockey fan? <http://www.plaidworks.com/hockey/>)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
<http://www.plaidworks.com/> + <http://www.lists.apple.com/>
