On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Tim Pierce wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
> > Check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html for a great
> > reason *not* to set the Reply-To: header. Any reasonable mailer should
> > have some sort of "reply to (l)ist, (s)ender, (b)oth" option.
>
> Unfortunately, there's an awful lot of unreasonable mailers in the
> world, which makes that philosophy impractical.
Impractical for whom? The only people inconvenienced by not setting the
Reply-To: are people using "broken" mailers. Maybe they will get tired of
having to type the list name in every time and get a more fully-featured
MUA.
I certainly think the ideas expressed above are *far* superior to the
daily messages I see on other lists that consist of "Oops, I meant to send
that privately -- sorry, people" which only creates more traffic and noise
through which everyone has to filter.
/pg
--
Peter Green
Gospel Communications Network, SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
