Re: [ML ISSUE] reply-to field ?
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote on Friday, March 30, 2007 3:31 PM -0500:
> > The whole fact that "majority" of other mailing lists and their users
> > does not know about this does not mean it's useless.
On 30.03.07 16:33, Seth Goodman wrote:
> You mean it _could_ be useful if most others went along, which they
> haven't.
I "mean" that "it's bad that ONLY in debian lists it makes sense to reply to
author, list and both, while for all other mailing lists it there's only one
choice".
> There are a lot of things about normal SMTP practice that
> violate recent RFC's and I personally don't like. For something
> that doesn't affect mail transport, but is a matter of how MUA's
> interpret trace headers, most people feel they have bigger fish to
> fry. To fix this problem, you need to convince not only the makers
> of numerous MTA's to change, but the maintainers of mailing list
> packages and a large number of mailing list administrators.
This is not about MTAs and SMTP here. This is about e-mail headers and MUAs.
> That's a large enough hurdle that I think it safe to say the horse
> has left the barn on this one a long time ago. Continuing to insist
> that things _should_ have been different, long past the point where
> that is feasible, only makes us look foolish. In that, we have been
> successful.
This thread started with complaining about non-existent Reply-To: headers
set by the list. Some people, including me, say that there are much better
ways to solve the mailing list reply problem.
Maybe you should read this thread again.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way.
Reply to: