[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling
J C Lawrence
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:21:09 -0700
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:44:29 -0400
Barry A Warsaw <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Field Min number Max number Notes reply-to 0 1
> Are you suggesting that we collapse Reply-To: even if we don't add
> one ourselves?
No. I specifically think we should collapse duplicate list
addresses in the Reply-To. Duplicate other addresses in the
Reply-To are likely not good, but are also not our responsibility.
Note: This does expose an abuse vector:
I don't like Bubba.
I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba.
Bubba is inundated with unwanted mail.
There is little/nothing Bubba can do about it.
I get away clean.
This abuse vector currently exists for non-reply-to munging lists.
The only difference is that with the change I'm advocating is that
it now also exists for reply-to munging lists where it didn't
Its easy to view this as either a Good or Bad Thing. I side on
adding to any extant Reply-To being a Good Thing in balance.
> I would think that we should only collapse if we're adding a
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
email@example.com He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.