** Sometime around 11:56 -0500 11/18/98, Justin Sheehy sent everyone:
>"Jeanne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[reply-to munging]
>
>> I've been running a list for about a year now and people are
>> perpetually asking that I do this. What indeed are the well-known
>> reasons?
>
>Most of them can be found here:
>
>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Just for the record, I disagree with nearly every point made in that
treatise. Overall, it is the list-owner equivalent of the GOOD TIMES
virus hoax.
(Uh-oh ... I feel a rant coming on ...)
<rant mode>
In short, munging (or adding) the REPLY-TO header has some very nice
benefits -- most notably (and then I'll step down off my soap box),
lists that DO NOT implement a REPLY-TO <list> header require that you
perform a "group" reply, also known as a "reply to all." This includes
the original author in the reply. When the NEXT person does a "group"
reply, the original author AND the secondary author are included. And
all THREE of them are included on the third reply. And so it grows.
This is a PITA. People who have a problem with Reply-To munging usually
have a sob story about accidentally sending personal mail to the entire
mailing list. The treatise is no different (okay, ONE MORE point, and
THEN I'll get down off my soap box):
>When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I
>accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own damn
>lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list properly,
>no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I stopped munging
>the very next day.
Ah yes, the testimonial to personal stupidity. How touching. Look, if
you're not bright enough to pay attention when composing e-mail, you
really have no business running a mailing list. (And if anyone quotes
my message from the one time that I did that on one of my lists, I'm
REALLY gonna get ticked. ;-)
Overall, it's a personal preference. I've held several "polls" on my
lists (one in particular) in response to suggestions that I change the
list to be, in ListProc parlance, REPLY-TO-SENDER instead of REPLY-TO-LIST.
In each case, the poll results have been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of
REPLY-TO-LIST.
I'm running lists for my subscribers, not for some clown who wants to
mention RFC822 as if it decries Reply-To munging, (it doesn't), and then
spreads FUD by saying "Email handling is surprisingly complicated, and even
an innocuous-sounding change might have grave, unintended consequences."
Bullhockey. E-mail is one of the most straightforward things on the planet,
it nearly predates the existence of hair ferchrissake, and if the author
of that document really believes his own FUD, he shouldn't be running
mailing lists.
I realize that I hold a minority position on this (or else the REAL
minority is very vocal on this issue), but hey, SOMEONE has to stand up
for the virtues of Reply-To munging, dammit.
</rant mode>
Whew. As you were, soldiers.
- Vince
