Re: reply-to munging
Jon Dowland wrote:
OK, I feel really embarrassed for my ignorance... I didn't even knew
what munging means (now I know it :-P).
And thanks for the link. But I still thinking that munging is a good
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:11:43PM -0300, Gabriel wrote:
And please, I know sometimes happens, but send the replys to the list.
That's why we all should add a reply-to field on the messages we send
to the list. (although I forgot to do this with this message :-P)
No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
Felix Miata wrote:
This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
list. You can't have a public discussion when people make their replies
And as they say in the link provided by Felix Miata, replying to a
private makes thing harder when you search on the archives of the list.
Frankly, I don't like to use that term. Historically, to "munge"
has always been used as a derogatory term. Since I consider
supplying a Reply-to: which actually specifies the originator
of the message, i.e. the list, not to be destructive, I prefer
not to use term in this context.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!