[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Responses to the list (oops)

Seth Goodman wrote:
> Getting back to the reply function, the standards are silent as to how to
> treat Reply-To: for a redistributed message and the field is optional to
> start with.  The preferred reply action for a mailing list message is to
> reply to the list (the actual sender of the message you received) rather
> than the original poster (a private reply to a public post, not generally
> appropriate).  It is perfectly within the purview of the list to alter the
> Reply-To: header so that the most commonly deployed MUA's will perform the
> preferred action when the recipient hits reply.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.  How you can cite 2822 as a reference for reply-to
munging while denouncing 822 is beyond me.  It was 822 that had an explicit
reference to mailing lists as an acceptable use of 822.  2822 *removed* that
reference on reply-tos just because of the long-standing debate over reply-to

    The real question is why List-Post was written in such a way as so that
people could debate it's usefulness as an inidicator of where to send replies
(it has happened, believe me) and why the head-honchos up on high who debate
such standards have gone on record as saying that a list-reply is not needed.

         Steve C. Lamb         | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
       PGP Key: 8B6E99C5       | main connection to the switchboard of souls.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: