On Apr 12, 2004, Andre Speelmans <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Gerrit repeatedly said in his summary that users of decent > mailreaders get punished when the Reply-To: header gets munged. That > may be so, although I really don't see why (flamers: no need to call > me dumb or stupid, I will admit that here and now, so we can all > save the bandwidth). [flameful reply contents intended to be sent in private, with lots of personal references that would be too embarrassing for the entire list to see omitted] :-) PS: sorry that this e-mail got posted to the list. I meant to reply in private, but the `reply in private' button somehow caused the message to be posted to the list, just like `reply to all' would. How odd... 'nuff said :-) BTW, gnus (my MUA of choice) has a per-folder configuration option called `broken-reply-to'. I set it for all lists that munge Reply-To. That's a good feature for a mail reader that helps users cope with broken mailing list set ups. /me wishes Mail-Followup-To: hadn't been shot down. It would have fixed all this mess. Unfortunately, without it, Reply-To: is as close as you can get, but still a PITA. Unless your MUA supports broken-reply-to, in which case it's just a minor one-time inconvenience :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
