Some of reasons themselves seemed fallacious to me.
There are some reasons FOR the tag....besides making it easy.
For one, for those using mailers that don't have a "Reply to group" and
instead use "Reply to all" it'll cut down on the dbl-emailing.
(getting two for every one got annoying really fast).
Two, that paper ASSUMED that ppl only want to reply to the author, when
in reality replying back to the list is done more often.
("Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups" - Under Siege 2)
Three, not all mailers (or ppl) are alike and assuming that they are
is fallacious.
I'll think of some more good reasons later.
G.
Eric Sorenson wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Gene wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe, but most OTHER ML's do it server-side and add the tag "Reply-to:"
>>to each message.
>
>
> They shouldn't, for many reasons, most of which are detailed
> in the "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" paper:
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
