[Ilugc] Re: reply to munging
- From: sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Prof. P. Sriram)
- Date: Mon Sep 25 15:25:31 2006
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, a list user wrote:
first time i have ever mailed a listadmin directly - could you please
implement reply-to munging
i will respond to the list instead. i have been doing my own reading
up on reply-to munging. yes, i have gone over the two usual documents
referred for and against - both dating back a few years, if i may add.
there is also enough material on record to suggest that this may be one of
those debian vs. openbsd type of religous wars. note, i did not say
windows vs. linux religous war since we all know in that one which side is
the faithful and which side is the infidel. but, i have come to a
conclusion and here is an argument that helped me
(
http://mlmmj.mmj.dk/archive/0919.html)
we will not do reply-to munging on this list (now).
why? well, i am swayed by the interpretation of rfc2822 which states that
'When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es) to
which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.'
i agree with the argument that 'the list is not the author of the message,
so the list has no business creating a new reply-to header or worse,
rewriting an existing reply-to header.' message authors are free to post
to the list with their own reply-to headers present and the list will
faithfully carry this in the postings - so, those who believe that
reply-to should be pointing to the list are free to add a reply-to header
at their end which points to the list and postings will appear so. those
who dont believe reply-to should point to the list need not add any
reply-to header and the list will not add any either.
of course, we can start our own religious wars here. the list (not me)
decides which way to go.
--
sriram
Other related posts:
