[Mailman-Users] REPLY-TO oddity

[Greg Stein]

Darren Henderson wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> 
> > discouraged.  For the seminal discussion of this issue, please read
> >
> >     http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> 
> I wish I had saved it. At one time I wrote a message to a mailing list
> where someone was toating this line. I went through and addressed each
> point that it made.
> ...
> What it comes down to is that, imo, that paticular diatribe is an opinion
> piece about what one persons preferences are and it offers very little in
> the way of any technical, moral, or factual information that relates to
> the use of the reply-to header.

Actually, I would be interested in your response to the largest problem
that I see with Reply-To munging:

* I have seen a reply-to-munging list blow away a guy's Reply-To. He was
mailing from a "bad" email address and had inserted a Reply-To to the
correct address. Luckily, he posted to two lists and I was able to reply
to him on the other list. The reply-to-munger destroyed that capability.

You can argue all you want about other things and I won't get into it,
but Reply-To munging simply broke the system in this case.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/