Thomas Lotze scripsit: > is there a reason mails from the Unicode list don't have a Reply-To > header pointing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Sorry to those who have received > private mail from me which was actually meant for the list...
This is a very controversial point. For an argument on the don't-add-Reply-To side, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html (no connection between unicom and unicode). In a word, it is much worse to send private mail unintentionally to a list than to send list mail unintentionally to just one person. The latter can be undone, the former cannot. In addition, some people actually need the "Reply-To" functionality because they read in one place and post in another. Header munging by lists breaks that. Some lists add "Reply-To" only if it's not already present, but that causes utterly unpredictable behavior for everyone else. -- Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter, Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): [EMAIL PROTECTED] One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net
