On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:43:05 -0800, Philip Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: [...] > But the primary point of a mailing list is for discussion ON THE LIST. > Do you want to disagree with that? partially. there are enough announce-only and moderated MLs. > So headers should be optimized for group discussion. > Replying to individuals is a secondary function. not at all. replying to individuals is an essentail function that is no less important than replying to the list. just because your MUA can't make the distinction without major help does not mean that everybody else with a capable MUA has to suffer. and reply-to's on MLs are evil anyway: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html [...] > So what, if the mailing software rewrites From: to have any reply-to > information from the original sender? Then the information is still > available. i'm still of the opinion that ML-software should have as minimal an impact on mails as possible. munging From: or other headers is not what i consider as minimal. [...] > And finally, example A.3.3 EXPLICITLY shows that "reply-to" is > NOT exclusively for "who wrote the message". It is for > "Where do you want replies to normally go to" my ML-software do not have a builtin AI to determine where replies of a specific recipient should normally go. -- Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr | ignorami: n: The BOFH art of folding problem <email@example.com> | lusers into representational shapes.
Description: PGP signature