Mike Meyer wrote: > When I notice that a list is broken (RFC 2822 says that > reply-to is for the *author* of the message; anyone else setting it is > doing so in violation of the RFC, and hence broken, no matter how > useful it may be),
Since when did obeying the RFC become important in and of itself? If there was a RFC that said that passwords should be limited to one alphanumeric character, would we slavishly follow it? I have been known to change the reply-to address from the address I am sending from ([EMAIL PROTECTED] for example) to the address I want the reply to go to ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). There are many times I'm emailing people I know can't cope with the complicated task of changing the To address of their reply, so I change the reply-to header so that their reply goes where I want it to go to (which might be another email address of mine, or a different person, or a mailing list). That's what reply to means, surely? What is the point of a reply-to header that must be the sender, since you already have a header that gives you the sender. If the RFC says that the reply-to header doesn't actually mean the address the reply should go to, but only the sender, then the RFC is broken. "Where the reply goes to" is a *human* decision, not a technical one. If I send you an email saying "Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]" then your mailer should honour that (although, since we are all adults, you should have the freedom to ignore my request and make a nuisance of yourself by emailing your reply to a different address). Likewise, if I set the reply address to the list, then your mailer should reply to the list. Perhaps you can argue that *my decision* to have replies go to the list is a bad one, but that's a social issue, not a technical one. > I tell my mailer to ignore reply-to on mail from > that list. Similarly, I no longer try and explain to people how long > lines violate RFCs and are a pain to read in well-behave mail readers, By "well-behaved", do you mean "can't cope with long lines"? How curious -- that's precisely the opposite definition of well-behaved I use. > or why mail readers that wrap text/plain content are broken. Curiouser and curiouser. Again that's the exact opposite of my definition of broken. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
