[PLUG] Re: reply-to curiosity...

Randal L. Schwartz merlyn at stonehenge.com
Wed Aug 15 14:30:28 UTC 2007


>>>>> "Jeme" == Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> writes:

Jeme> But the real point here (despite very dumb analogies) is that neither
Jeme> replying to the sender alone nore the list alone is particularly
Jeme> difficult without the Reply-To munged, but replying to the sender alone
Jeme> is hard with the Reply-To munged.

Hear hear.

And this is the problem.  Reply-to munging LOSES INFORMATION THAT
CANNOT BE RECOVERED.  This is bad.  This is wrong.

IF THE REPLY-TO IS NOT MUNGED: If you're on a mailing list, and you want the
whole list to see your reply to a post, YOU HAVE A WAY IN YOUR MAILER TO DO
THAT.  And if you just want the original person to see a side comment, YOU
HAVE A WAY TO DO THAT.  It's about the choice of the person constructing the
reply.

IF THE REPLY-TO IS MUNGED: You *lose* that choice.  This is dumb.  This
accomodates the idiots, while hampering the experts.  You *want* to encourage
experts to reply.

Please stop munging the reply-to.  Please use the headers as they were
intended.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!




More information about the PLUG mailing list