[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling

Chuq Von Rospach chuqui@plaidworks.com
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:30:30 -0700

On 10/19/01 8:50 PM, "J C Lawrence" <claw@2wire.com> wrote:

> I agree, except that as a moderator who regularly moves threads
> about, having the abilty to coerce, or minimally force initiation of
> the thread move as a Good and Useful Thing.

Fair 'nuff. Stylistic differences, neither is right or wrong. I do it

>> Agreed, but I consider this at best a niche feature/sitaution, and
>> don't feel any real need/interest to support it.
> True, but its a pleasant windfall even if minor.

Unless implementing it causes other problems elsewhere.

>> Does it? 
> Yup.

But I don't agree....

>> What about the case where a list is not coerced reply-to, but one
>> fo the subscribers feels it should be, so he coerces reply-to
>> covertly, which is propogated out and through the list.
> Which is actually orthogonal to the case under discussion and is
> thus a red herring.

I'm not sure I agree, but I won't push the issue. I think the MLM should be
consistent to the end-user, which means it does the same thing based on its
configuration, no matter what the original poster sets in their headers.
That means headers like reply-to much be stripped before processing, not
carried through, or you hae inconsistent variations of those headers.

> What you seem to be asking for is reply-to stripping for lists that
> don't munge reply-to.  I can see the reasoning, but also see
> considerable danger/pain in that direction.

Exactly. And I don't see danger/pain, I see consistency of operations.

Wich, I guess, makes me the hobgoblin of small mindedness.....