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

[Johnny Hughes]

I don't really have a preference on the e-mail that is sent ...
including the address of the sender is fine with me.  What I would like
to see is the e-mail address of the people removed from the archive.

-Johnny Hughes
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 10:12, Hedemark, Magnus wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-devel mailing list
> Whitebox-devel@beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel