Re: Reply to header

[Jack Bertram]

* Buddy Burden <address@hidden> [041104 19:05]:
> >Sounds like a great reason for everybody else on the list to lose useful
> >functionality.
> 
> I'm really really not trying to be difficult here, but ... exactly what 
> is the functionality that everybody else is losing?  The only thing I 
> see becoming more difficult is sending a "private reply" to someone. 
> Since that is very definitely the exception rather than the rule (I 
> personally have never done it, on this list or any other list I 
> subscribe to), how is making 95% of replies easier and 5% harder 
> (obviously just swag-ging on the percentages there) losing any useful 
> functionality?

The point is that proper mail clients don't make it hard to send a
private reply to someone.  The fact that Outlook etc. don't allow you to
do this (and isn't it blindingly obvious that a reply-to-list is
different from a reply-to-person? It's like replying to a newspaper
letter by person rather than replying to the newspaper.  And for those
who don't have the functionality and don't want to delete the extra
email addresses, just forward and enter the list address alias in the To
line) isn't a reason to introduce behaviour which could result in
someone sending a message to a place they don't intend to.

Not that it particularly matters to me since I strip out all Reply-To:
headers as they come in to my email server precisely because they're
harmful.

pgpTTMkaaaJ2T.pgp
Description: PGP signature