> Bernie Cosell wrote: > > >Note two things: first the verbiage about the 'teleconferencing' stuff > >has been removed [NB: I don't believe this is just an oversight, but > >rather because of a general feeling that "reply-to-list" is not such a > >good thing, as has been beaten to death here and elsewhere]. Second, in > >the use of reply-to the operative verb is "suggests", which clearly > >implies that mail clients that permit reply-addressing options *beyond* > >just "send it where the reply-to says" are proper and expected. > > > What do you mean with "beaten to death elsewhere" and "general feeling"?.
As I said, it is a *LONGSTANDING* debate that has been discussed for *YEARS* (decades!) off and on, here and there. And as I said, the general way it works out is that newcomers to the Internet usually like "reply-to-list" while the folks with more experience generally prefer "don't mess with the reply-to". [and so there's a sort-of-common progression: the folk arguing for reply-to-list two years ago are now more impassive about it, while the folk that were arguing for reply-to- list five years ago generally realize that the prevailing wisdom on it was probably correct] It isn't a slam-dunk, black-and-white issue, of course -- there ARE arguments to be made on both sides [and they ARE made, over and over and over], but overall the general-wisdom on this is to leave the reply-to alone. Did you follow the URL in my post? <http://www.halisp.net/halisp/reply-to-harmful.html> And did you notice the date on it -- *1996*. And it was an old/tired issue *THEN*. *That's* what I meant by longstanding. And read the "Addendum": > In case you are wondering, yes, I once thought Reply-To munging was a > nifty idea. I got better though. Notice the progression: just as I mentioned in my paragraph above... it isn't unusual to start generally thinking "Reply-To munging was a nifty idea" but eventually, and with more experience, most folk change their view on this. > Every list to which I am subscribed uses the "reply-to"header to mark > the address of the list. Then you're not subscribed to very many lists and/or haven't been at this game very long... > Every MUA I use, which are Mozilla, Mutt, Pegasus offer the reply-to > address as first choice to send a reply to. Just so -- what's your point? *SOME* choice had to be first, and making it be reply-to is probably correct [given the RFC's recommendation]. so some times you pick the first choice and some times you pick the second [or third] choice... Now that we have "LIst-Id" headers, if you had a smart enough email client, you'd actually have both "reply" and "followup" functions [which would *ONLY* work properly if the MLM doesn't fool with reply-to... yet another reason why messing with reply-to is a bad idea: it cripples one neat [RFC-supported] function of the really- competent MUAs] > And as you state yourself, RFC 2822 explicitely allows the use of the > reply-to header. Just so -- again, what's your point? No one has said it is *not*allowed* for the MLM to change the reply-to, only that, on balance, it is better left alone. > I really do not understand why sqlite should act different than all > mailinglists I get mail from. Perhaps because sqlite is more sensibly set up?? Is your 'understanding' based on your actually reviewing any/some of the thinking and arguments on this matter that have been made over the years/decades? > And I do not see the problem, if the reply-to header is used, all other > headers can stay the same, but many people are helped with this. As has been pointed out [both here and in the MANY discussions on this matter], *SOME* people are helped with it, but overall the consensus is generally that it hurts more than it helps. /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
