From: "Von Fugal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > As has been stated by a few, (hmm, I guess it has all been Fugals if I > remember correctly) there is a good reason for the change.[1] Granted, there . . . > [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Well after letting my UUG box build up to 150 unread emails I finally decided to work through them all. I realize the "reply-to" issue has been resolved but I can't help to comment on Chip's persuasive plea found in the above reference. I'll keep this short. Chip's seemingly most persuasive argument to me is that it is fundamentally wrong to alter the header in such a way. He states, "The Reply-To header was not invented on a whim. It is there for the sender of a mail message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can lose important information." I believe this argument does not apply in the manner he intends. My view is that once the email is sent to the list and is then distributed to its members, it is no longer an email from the original sender, but it is from the list as a whole. It's logical then that a reply to the sender would be sent to the list, not the originator of the email. The list owns the email once it passes it on to the members. Chip and others also argue that private messages are accidentally sent to entire lists. Along with other oppositions to this arguement, I'd like to point out that during the 5 years I've been subscribed to this list, there's only been one obvious case of this occuring. Just my opinion . . . btw, I can't let 150 posts go by w/o contributing. Matt W. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
