Tennessee Leeuwenburg <[email protected]> writes: > Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
It really isn't, though. Setting “Reply-To” to the mailing list is significantly more harmful than leaving that field alone. * The failure mode of “don't do anything with Reply-To” is that sometimes people send a message to an individual, that they *intended* to go more public. * The failure mode of “set Reply-To to the mailing list” is that sometimes people send a message publicly, that they *intended* to be private to an individual. Which failure is easier to recover? The former is hardly any damage at all; recovery simply requires sending the message again to the correct address. The latter is unrecoverable. Once a message has been sent more publicly than intended, it cannot be un-sent. Setting “Reply-To” to the list is much more troublesome for those who run afoul of it. > I've never found a 'best' setting, you just have to choose your > preferred set of hassles. So it's not merely a matter of preference. One mode is clearly more damaging than the other. > I'll change it if 70% of people agree and at least ten people express > an opinion. That's because I value stability at 25% but I can't have > half a person if only ten people vote :). Because the failure mode of “don't do anything with Reply-To” is harmless and easily recovered, I vote for that. This shouldn't be decided by vote, though. It should be decided by doing the least harm. -- \ “Room service? Send up a larger room.” —Groucho Marx | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
