On 09/28/2010 01:15 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
Which choice is the most usefull depends on many factors that need to be
If the reply-to: header was already being set from when the list was
mailinglist in order not to change an existing mailinglist ? Or is it
really not that important to you, but you simply disagree with changing
a behaviour (no matter what way) ?
I could have been clearer in my reply to Hugo. What I mean is that I
think that the 'right' thing to do for this list is still to not add a
reply-to header, its not a forced community[1]. If that was being done
from day.1 - whatever be the reasons, it would make sense to just leave
it as is. But taking something that is working right and changing it
makes no sense to me.
W.r.t the point that Hugo made about posts to this list not going
offlist at all, I dont think thats right. In many cases, it will make
sense to involve and retain involvement of upstream or parallel
packagers who may or maynot be on the list. Forcing a reply-to does a
good job of killing that option for most MUA's, specially the ones doing
the right thing.[2]
Given that MUA's will give you the option to handle reply either way,
changing the headers does not help anyone. Then there is also the issue
with spam testing and you now need to check an extra return path for
every inbound email.
- KB
[1]: eg. within a company or a development group inside a closed user
group. The only sort of setup that needs to enforce the reply-to header.
[2]: I am assuming here that smtp as a spec is the right thing.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
