More on Reply-To (was: Re: [lug] Hacking Society Meeting tonight!)

[Tkil]

>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Riggs <rob at pangalactic.org> writes:

Rob> Sure, blame the nasty reply-to header and the mailing list
Rob> software.  It was a user error akin to forgetting to hit the
Rob> spell check button.

Hm.  I don't quite agree with that.  Not really for exactly the same
reasons as the "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" document, but for
the simple reason that it makes these mailing lists act different than
normal mail, usenet news, and most other mailing lists.  Since lists
are a combination or cross between these two forms, I'd prefer that
they behave the same except when they must differ.  Reply-To munging
is an unnecessary incompatibility, as it were.

Rob> Why don't you just write a elisp macro to deal with it on your
Rob> MUA? ;)

That's harder than you might think.  There are cases where Reply-To is
properly set by the author of the message, and it should be honored;
that's one reason why having the mailing-list software insert it is a
bad idea.

*shrug*  Maybe I need to implement an "ignore Reply-To values in this
list" feature.

t.