On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 06:54:40PM -0500, David Phillips wrote: > Joel Schneider writes: > > For the record, an opposing point of view: > > Which is entirely wrong, for one simple reason: it destroys useful > information. It also makes it much more difficult to reply to the sender of > a message and not to the list. Really? What information does it destroy? Most Reply-To munging turns any previous Reply-To into X-Reply-To preserving the information. As for making it 'much more difficult', what email client *doesn't* have a 'Reply To Sender' function? > > The basic premise of that essay is that it easier for people with lacking > MUAs to reply to the list, while not breaking things too much for people > with good MUAs. That is not a reasonable trade off for something that > destroys useful information. Several good mailers support Mail-Followup-To, > which is a much more correct solution to the problem. What information is destroyed? A large majority of replies to messages on this list go to the list, as opposed to the original author. What is broken for people with 'good MUAs'? > -- > David Phillips <david at acz.org> > http://david.acz.org/ -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list