Mikael Johansson wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Misha Aizatulin wrote:
Here is an argument against Reply-To munging. I'd say I agree with it:
* It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. [...] 1) get multiple copies of mails concerning discussions I participate in or 2) have to manually re-edit the header each and every time I want to keep a discussion on a mailing list, possibly with added trouble finding the right adress to send to
A reasonable mailer has functions "reply", "reply-to-all" and "reply-to-list". I'm composing this mail using "reply-to-list", have to edit no headers, the reply goes to the list and nobody gets duplicate copies.
* It removes important information, which can make it impossible to get back to the message sender.
This is the most important bit, actually. Anyone who wants to post a single question to haskell or haskell-cafe has to be subscribed, or the reply may go to the list, no matter what he put into the reply-to header. Is it a good thing to shut out casual users?
I view pine as something that should be classified as reasonable
Pein (sic!) is not reasonable. If you love it so much, please whip out the source code, implement a "reply-to-list" function and get at least one mailer removed from a silly debate.
I disagree. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree.
Very convincing. Keep up the good work. Udo. -- Hast du zum Leben kein Motiv -- steig mal vor, vielleicht geht's schief. -- aus einem Gipfelbuch