From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 16:39:35 EST
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
> is there a reason mails from the Unicode list don't have a Reply-To
> header pointing to email@example.com? Sorry to those who have received
> private mail from me which was actually meant for the list...
This is a very controversial point. For an argument on the don't-add-Reply-To
side, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html (no connection
between unicom and unicode).
In a word, it is much worse to send private mail unintentionally to a list
than to send list mail unintentionally to just one person. The latter can
be undone, the former cannot.
In addition, some people actually need the "Reply-To" functionality because
they read in one place and post in another. Header munging by lists breaks
that. Some lists add "Reply-To" only if it's not already present, but that
causes utterly unpredictable behavior for everyone else.
-- Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter, Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): firstname.lastname@example.org One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 17:16:41 EST