Re: [OT] no Reply-To: header

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

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gerrit wrote:

|Joolz wrote:
|
|>This is not a fedora question, but her is goes...
|>
|>Many people on this (and other) mailing list(s) don't use a "Reply-To:
|>[list]". I use Mutt, is there a way to have Mutt use the To: address
|>(not the From: address) when making a reply? Thanks!
|
|
|Reply-To is bad. http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
|
|Summary:
|
|Many people want to munge Reply-To headers. They believe it makes
reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic. It really
does neither, and is a very poor idea. Reply-To munging suffers from
the following problems:
|
|    * It violates the principle of minimal munging.
|    * It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
|    * It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will
direct a response.
|    * It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable
mailer.
|    * It removes important information, which can make it impossible
to get back to the message sender.
|    * It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to
coddle those running brain-dead software.
|    * It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages.
|    * It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes
the way a mailer works.
|    * It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a
failure mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
|    * Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones
who have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to
do it.
|
|Gerrit.
|
All things being equal, this has a minimal impact on most people
throughout the course of their day.

I munge my mailing list emails as they come in for all the lists I'm
subscribed to ( via maildrop ).  I keep the old Reply-To: header
around in case I need it, but in the year or so I've been doing this,
I've not once had to go digging for it.

So while your point of view is sound in theory, the practice itself
hasn't presented me with any problems.

YMMV

- --
Sean Kennedy
PGP public key: http://tpno.org/keys/0xFC1C377F.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAdZkHIjyA6vwcN38RAobcAJ992hTGV6rMLd4Hnu+eL6ULSyPttwCcD9Ik
1TSmQmSnpMsV0CwoRPZ484E=
=Txno
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux