Re: Bogus reply-to
On 2004-08-09, Brian Nelson penned:
>
> Unfortunately, those headers are not specified in the relevant RFCs
> and are not in wide use outside of Linux and other highly technical
> mailing lists. Support for MFT and MCT headers is strictly optional,
> so many mail client authors/vendors simply choose not to support them.
Yup. I realize this. I'm just so frustrated. If I request no cc's in
my sig, I get tons of mail telling me that I should use the headers
instead. If I use the headers, I get cc'd. Actually, I got cc'd even
with the request right there in the bloody sig. (I seem to use british
cursewords when frustrated online; don't ask me why.) And I do
understand why this bogus reply-to is not the best solution, but I
figure that it might get the message across. And I guess I figure that
folks who know enough to help me with my questions probably use clients
that respect the headers and handle the reply-to properly, although I
could of course be wrong and yes, it's awfully heavy handed and rather
self-serving at the expense of the other list members.
I guess the socially responsible thing to do is, what -- just put up
with dupes? I guess it's not such a big deal, but it irritates me all
out of proportion to the incidents.
--
monique
Ask smart questions, get good answers:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Reply to: