-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "ms" == michael satterwhite <satterwh@netcom.com> writes:
ms> The entire purpose of the system, INCLUDING THE RFC, is to make
ms> things more usable to people. The reply_to header being set by the
ms> list is frequently the most usable action. Any standard designed to
ms> limit usability is absurd on the surface.
The restriction on the use of Reply-To is not to limit its usability, it
is to prevent problems such as mail loops and other less serious
problems. For every broken MUA out there that a list-set Reply-To
"fixes" you break many more MUAs which can correctly deal with "reply to
originator" vs. "reply to list" by forcing those MUAs to put the list's
address in the replys' To headers rather than what the readers want to
have there.
ms> As it it, I agree that the RFC allows it.
See previous rant.
ms> If it didn't, it should be changed - or (in the interest of
ms> usability) ignored as unusable.
This is what I am saying. reply_to should never have been there; it
should be removed if compliance with RFC-822 is desired.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMdQjJp6VRH7BJMxHAQGX8gP/cb/NIoYPXe6stbHGd6slA122F5QmzguR
ZyIPSFKX5vHZgwFD/4OjjvX/6FNW8Bb9FGaQuOB6H2mkIK2BJMs9nYdXc3vpDvNA
wc5LRMVdIkT5D2lrNpwBhVEZCNEAZzeQ2Fm9rCQYCt5F7JWZ/QEJZspzuAhs6NgU
xWfWJRDmnzE=
=ftNU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Richard Pieri/Information Services \ Make your mark in the world, or at least
<ratinox@unilab.dfci.harvard.edu> \ spray in each corner. -A cat's guide to
http://www.dfci.harvard.edu/ \ life
References:
-
Re: Reply-To
From: michael satterwhite <satterwh@netcom.com>
|
|
