Re: More detailed post ...
on Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 02:38:25PM -0500, Fred Smith (fps@dividedsky.net) wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 02:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> i hadn't read that, and it brings up a number of points I hadn't
> considered, but the majority of them are along the lines of "elm has a
> reply-to-list function, so this isn't a problem". however, it is a
> problem in many (popular) mailers which don't have a reply-to-list
> function.
Further flogging a dead horse: munging reply-to means that if a user
*does* explicitly set reply-to (say, so that list mail is copied to both
themselves *and* the list), the list's munging of reply-to will break
this request. Which addresses precisely the problem that launched this
thread.
The most pathological response to the reply-to debate I've experienced
is LUGoD, the Linux User Group of Davis, for which merely *mentioning*
the subject is a bannable offense. This is addressed in the recently
added "Eminent Domain" clause (translation: censorship policy) of
LUGoD's mailing list rules: http://www.lugod.org/mailinglists/ Thank
Peter Jay Salzman, list administrator, for that little bit of fascism.
The *other* response is for users of real MUAs to set their client to
ignore the reply-to header, either globally, or when responding to
mailing list posts. In mutt, see the 'ignore_list_reply_to' and
'reply_to' options. This is a typical response to abused features --
those with the clue and means to defeat the feature (javascript, popups,
flash, banner advertising, reply-to munging) will do so, rendering it
largely impotent.
Which is yet another argument against reply-to munging: abuse of a
feature leads to a reduced usefulness of it in cases in which it
actually *does* accomplish something helpful.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
There is no K5 Cabal: http://www.kuro5hin.org/
Reply to: