On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:44:29 -0400 Barry A Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Field Min number Max number Notes reply-to 0 1 Thanks. > Are you suggesting that we collapse Reply-To: even if we don't add > one ourselves? No. I specifically think we should collapse duplicate list addresses in the Reply-To. Duplicate other addresses in the Reply-To are likely not good, but are also not our responsibility. Note: This does expose an abuse vector: I don't like Bubba. I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba. Bubba is inundated with unwanted mail. There is little/nothing Bubba can do about it. I get away clean. This abuse vector currently exists for non-reply-to munging lists. The only difference is that with the change I'm advocating is that it now also exists for reply-to munging lists where it didn't before. Its easy to view this as either a Good or Bad Thing. I side on adding to any extant Reply-To being a Good Thing in balance. > I would think that we should only collapse if we're adding a > value. Agreed. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
