[lug] Re: More on Reply-To

[Peter Hutnick]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 12:37 pm, Tom Tromey wrote:

[snip a bunch of cogent arguments]

> And of course I dislike having my own UI hijacked administratively.

This may be the most persuasive argument I have heard to date.

> More generally, I thought a later RFC introduced new headers precisely
> to eliminate this entire problem.  Why don't we push technology
> forward, and use that?

I'm on a list (an sf.net list) that uses the following headers:

List-Help, List-Post, List-Subscribe, List-Id, List-Unsubscribe, and 
List-Archive.  I haven't personally checked if any or all of these are 
blessed by RFC, but if they are they seem to address both the reply-to issue 
and the issue of "list sigs" that no one ever bothers to trim on replies :-(

Lest anyone complain that their agent doesn't support automagically utilizing 
these headers, remember that the big solution to my complaint of loss of 
reply-to information was "dig around in the headers for X-reply-to."  What's 
good for the goose is good for the munger!

- -Peter

- -- 
/"\ ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail
\ /
 X   Get my PGP key at http://hutnick.com/pgp
/ \  6128 5651 6F23 EC17 6EBD  737D 960A 20E6 76CA 8A59
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9Bln8lgog5nbKilkRAnq+AKCJvDHm9QOVO/yg8CNO89hZUK4QqACfWlz4
7mH3+oV5Cw1AqsGykqDtkl4=
=gWd7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----