[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To munging considered *carefully*
barry at python.org
Wed Oct 14 18:31:12 CEST 2009
Since this thread has devolved into the same unwinnable emacs-vs-vim
argument about Reply-To munging, I'm going to disengage.
Mailman's official policy won't change. It considers Reply-To munging
to be a bad thing in the general case, and will discourage its use.
It will still supply the tools to allow list owners to do it, but it
may make such options more obscure. Support for Reply-To munging will
not be removed if only so we can tell list owners to stfu, or to
provide them cover to tell their users to stfu. :)
Mailman also recognizes that there are a few limited legitimate use
cases for a mailing list to indicate where follow up postings should
go, and that there is currently no other way to support these use
cases than Reply-To munging.
Any attempt to impose additional semantics or responsibilities on
Reply-To will only make matters worse. I support Stephen's efforts to
rally consensus and eventual standards around an unambiguous less-
contentious <wink> list-domain header for these use cases.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Mailman-Developers