[WBEL-devel] Reply-to (was RE: rsync mirror...)

[Hedemark, Magnus]

Kevin Brouelette [mailto:kevin1a@varlog.net]

> I understand both sides of the coin since I help admin a few mailing
> lists. On my lists, I don't munge the reply-to which is my preference.
> Here's a good read if you are interested.
> 
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Normally I don't get into debates like this where nobody is likely to change
the mind of anyone else, but the irony in your post is that you demonstrated
a great reason why we ought to munge reply-to like most sane lists do;  take
a look at the recipient headers of the message you sent me.

Yes, I needlessly got two copies of this message.  I'm subscribed to the
list, so why should I get the message twice?  Because people are inherently
lazy and will just do a Reply-All without fixing their recipient list.  If
people can't handle the responsibility of managing their recipient lists
when replying to an un-munged mailing list post, then we shouldn't even be
having this discussion.  The headers should be munged as the evangelists of
"pure headers" can't extend the common courtesy of cleaning up their
outbound mail.

IMNSHO, this is worse than top posting.  It's worse than bulk quoting.  And
it can only be effectively stopped by munging the reply-to header.