Tim Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 17 February 1999 at 18:09:39 -0500
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 08:32:16AM -0500, Peter Green wrote:
> > > Why doesn't Qmail mailing list set the
> > > Reply To: field to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
> > > It is very anoying that I must type the
> > > mailing list address for every message
> > > I respond to.
> >
> > 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. While I sympathize
> with the opinions offered in "Reply-to Considered Harmful," it's
> mostly ivory tower theorizing.
The lack of MUA support for useful options is a bitch. But I have to
work hard to reply direct to people on a few lists I'm on that use
munging, and I see private stuff accidentally posted on those lists
more than once a month. Those are real harms.
The problem is that not munging the reply makes the common case
harder, but munging the reply makes some less common, but still
definitely present, cases harder. And a very few impossible. I can't
get around the impossible, so I don't mung reply-to on lists I
control.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
