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
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
> 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
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, firstname.lastname@example.org ; 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.