OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)
rhorer at swbell.net
Wed Oct 30 21:00:06 CET 2002
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:17, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To:
I have to disagree that Reply-To: munging destroys information. Here's
why -- most MUA's I have used do not by default show the Reply-To:
header for either incoming or outgoing mail. Some will let you
configure them to show it, some won't. Many (most?) users have never
seen a Reply-To: header (or field if you're speaking of entering info
into the MUA for sending), so they don't rely on it to give them any
meaningful information. If a list administrator wants to preserve the
From: header but cause replies to go back to the list, then IMO
Reply-To: munging is an appropriate way to cause such behavior. In
contrast, I'm leaning toward the opinion that changing the To: header
is Bad Juju®.
> Faking the To: header is no different. The mail isn't
> being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.
That point is what tipped my scale.
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual
and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
More information about the Mailman-Users