On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 04:10:58PM -0600, Marc Aurele La France wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Andy Goth wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 8, 2003 12:05 pm, Egbert Eich wrote: > > > Daniel Stone writes: > > > > I also hope like hell Mailman isn't munging Reply-To, because that's > > > > just *wrong*. > > > > Hm, I don't know what you would call munging, it puts the list address > > > into the Reply-To. > > > Daniel is probably referring to: > > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > ... which expresses an opinion not that widely held.
Sorry, I lost about 10min worth of mail when I switched hosts my mail spooled on, and Egbert's reply must've been in that. Reply-To considered harmful is an opinion I hold, and it seems to be the opinion of most everyone I've encountered. The pressure should be on the MUA to do the right thing; either the user should set a Mail-Followup-To header, or you should reply to all per default, or you should just do a list reply. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.kde.org - http://www.debian.org - http://www.xwin.org "Configurability is always the best choice when it's pretty simple to implement" -- Havoc Pennington, gnome-list
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
