Munging Reply-To
On Jan 22, 4:26pm, Greg McCarroll wrote: reply-to having the address of the sender is the right thing, [...] its just the right thing Nail meets hammer. thwack/ If I explicitly set the Reply-To: in a message posted to the list then the software is munging it to set it to reply to the list. Therefore, the current behaviour is wrong, even according to the "Munging Reply-To considered harmful" arguments (which we don't necessarily accept as valid). A -- Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signature regenerating. Please remain seated. [EMAIL PROTECTED] For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
Re: Munging Reply-To
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 05:10:57PM +, alex wrote: there is only one right way, and that's to give people the choice. that's what i do, and in my experience the majority prefer to have their reply-to's munged on discussive lists such as this one. I wonder whether that's really true, or if it's simply that most people don't bother to change from the default because they're not that interested? If the default was an unmunged (void) and (void-munged) was also available for the munging fanatics, which would be the majority then? Don't know, but wondering... .robin.
