A listadmin's plea.....

[Mike Markley]

The change I've made to my headers is a perfectly common setup (*and* the
original intent of the Reply-To: header). Now how would you know to send
replies to the write place if the bad list munged that header?

There are informal standards for handling list followups - Mail-Copies-To,
Mail-Followup-To. Mutt knows about one and can easily be set to generate the
other, and will Do The Right Thing(tm) depending on whether you "r"eply or
"L"ist reply. No guessing about what you want, and the aforementioned
headers convey my wishes as far as getting Cc's of list messages.

In otherwords, there are much better solutions than destroying headers that
the sender may have placed there for a reason :).

On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 01:54:34PM -0700, Kysh <debkysh@lapdragon.org> spake forth:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 01:40:58PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
> It's not evil! It follows the original intent of the RFCs! Christ almighty, 
> I've never understood you people. The email is sent to an address. That
> address turns around and re-sends it. Why on earth should the from not be
> set to the address that re-sent it? Why should the reply-to field be added?
> It's a complete mangling of protocol, and it's really annoying to boot. 
> 
> It makes no sense for 'reply' to go to the individual, unless it's an 
> announcement-based list, instead of a discussion-based list. 

-- 
Mike Markley <mike@markley.org>
GPG: 0x3B047084 7FC7 0DC0 EF31 DF83 7313  FE2B 77A8 F36A 3B04 7084

Men of peace usually are [brave].
- Spock, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.5