Re: Bogus reply-to
Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
> On 2004-08-10, s. keeling penned:
> > Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama:
> >>
> >> Fine. I'll get rid of this reply-to, since apparently it's not only
> >> causing trouble but also spawning conspiracy theories. But I won't
> >
> > fwiw, I think you should give it more time to be tested. I thought it
> > was pretty inventive. I also thought it was amusing that it was going
> > to be sending the Cc: to my ISP's admin. :-)
>
> That could be ... interesting.
It's certain to (eventually) come to my attention. He's a true bofh. :-)
> > You're not doing anything exceptionally objectionable. Until somebody
> > steps up and gives you reasons why this makes you no better than a
> > baby killer, I'd leave it alone.
>
> What's not clear to me is whether, when a reasonable person attempts to
> send a message to the list in reply to my message with the bogus
> reply-to, it works as intended.
>
> IE, do a significant number of clients interpret "reply-to" as "always
> reply to this address even if replying to a message that came from a
> list"?
Considering the difficulty you're having implementing this, I would
definitely have a line at the bottom (top?) of your posts demanding
that replies go to the list, and to **** with anyone who complains
about said line.
> What I want is for people attempting to reply to me *on the list* to
> easily be able to do so; on the other hand, I want to make it more
> difficult for people attempting to reply to me *directly* to do so.
This seems eminently reasonable. This is how mailing lists are
_supposed_ to work.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling
- -
Reply to: