Noah Slater <nsla...@tumbolia.org> writes: > As far as I see it: > > * Debian has dropped the Reply-To header because it is "harmful" in > some way. > > * Debian has mandated that all replies must behave as if Reply-To existed.
If this were the case, this would be an easy solution. However, it's not. Debian has mandated that all *public* replies must behave as if Reply-To existed, but all *private* replies behave as if it did not, and repliers must distinguish between the two. Simplifications that drop that distinction will always miss the point. The primary problem with setting Reply-To is that it makes private replies extremely difficult (in clients that honor the RFC-defined meaning of the header field, at least) and significantly increases the chances that private replies will accidentally become public. I don't think that's the right social direction in which to go. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
