Reply-To munging (was: q for the C hackers)

[bscott at ntisys.com]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, at 2:50am, Aaron.Hope at unh.edu wrote:
> BTW, Is there a reason why mailman isn't configured to set the reply-to
> header?

  Some time back, the list took a vote, and more people voted "harmful" then
"useful", and we went with the plurality.

  To avoid rehashing, here are the two arguments:

Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html 

Reply-To Munging Considered Useful
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml 

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |