-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -1, reasons below
Jason Hunter wrote: > (Now posting to the official vote thread just in case votes aren't counted in the branch.) > > -- > I agree with Fitz too. I especially don't like that it eats actual Reply-To headers. I was in the reply-to camp until I read these messages, and this document: > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Makes a lot of sense, and makes me wish we could go back before the behaviour was learned :) Having recently used infra@ where the header is not present with good reasons, I can say you learn very quickly. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Cygwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCE9+nOb5RoQhMkRMRAhRJAJ9VIeCTiBondBczkTiiTP5NXhxoLACeMyCe mw4vszRGQD326u8RXbM22Mg= =DM3M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
