On 10/19/01 8:50 PM, "J C Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads > about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation of > the thread move as a Good and Useful Thing. Fair 'nuff. Stylistic differences, neither is right or wrong. I do it differently. >> Agreed, but I consider this at best a niche feature/sitaution, and >> don't feel any real need/interest to support it. > > True, but its a pleasant windfall even if minor. Unless implementing it causes other problems elsewhere. >> Does it? > > Yup. But I don't agree.... >> What about the case where a list is not coerced reply-to, but one >> fo the subscribers feels it should be, so he coerces reply-to >> covertly, which is propogated out and through the list. > > Which is actually orthogonal to the case under discussion and is > thus a red herring. I'm not sure I agree, but I won't push the issue. I think the MLM should be consistent to the end-user, which means it does the same thing based on its configuration, no matter what the original poster sets in their headers. That means headers like reply-to much be stripped before processing, not carried through, or you hae inconsistent variations of those headers. > What you seem to be asking for is reply-to stripping for lists that > don't munge reply-to. I can see the reasoning, but also see > considerable danger/pain in that direction. Exactly. And I don't see danger/pain, I see consistency of operations. Wich, I guess, makes me the hobgoblin of small mindedness..... _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
