On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:12:54PM -0800, J C Lawrence wrote:
> RFC 2822 explicitly states that Reply-To can contain a list of
> headers. RFC 822 is more ambiguous. To my mind this single fact (if
> used with Reply-To aggregation) obviates most of the arguments in the
> Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful document.
Not really, it only addresses the limited problem that Reply-To munging
removes the Reply-To that the posting user could have been set.
In the case where I want replies to go to another address than my posting
address, that's fine, and indeed extending Reply-To: is much better than
replacing it.
This doesn't affect however the many other problems including:
- me trying to set a reply-to to redirect traffic to another list
(not that it works that well anyway, but at least it can give a clue)
- you replying to me privately without having to hand edit headers
- mailing list loops with broken autoresponders)
- etc...
(see reply-to considered harmful document for "etc")
Marc
--
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
