Broken MUA interactions

[Ben Finney]

"Chris Mellon" <arkanes at gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/9/07, Gabriel Genellina <gagsl-py2 at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> > No, it's not correct to modify Reply-To. Some reasons:
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> None of those are reasons, they're opinions and weary old excuses.

They're old, but not weary, because they're now supported by the
internet message standards, which spell out exactly what Reply-To and
List-Post are for.

    <URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html>

    Reply-To, if used, is to be set by the message author. Since a
    message transport system may only add fields to the header, not
    arbitrarily modify existing fields, Reply-To can't be munged.
    <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt>

    List-Post is to be used to give the email address for posting
    messages to the mailing list.
    <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt>

Please, let's stop arguing what's already been decided. Every
behaviour you ask for is already supported by the existing
standards. The "common case" you speak of is fully supported by the
unambiguous List-Post field.

If your MUA is not using the information, provided in every message
from the mailing list, to do what you want, don't ask mailing list
admmministrators to accomodate your broken MUA.

-- 
 \         "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, |
  `\    Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so."  -- _Pinky |
_o__)                                                   and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney