Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(August 1995)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: re: munging reply-to headers (digest V4 #154)
From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho @ ifi . uio . no>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 17:09:34 +0200
To: fuzzy @ asarian . org
Cc: List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <Pine . LNX . 3 . 91 . 950819090912 . 9937C-100000 @ ASARian . org> (message from Fuzzy on Sat, 19 Aug 1995 09:18:53 -0400 (EDT))


|   our users are using pine 3.91 and it asks, if there is a
|   reply-to:, if it should use the original from:, (private reply),
|   or reply-to:, (public reply). we find this works fine for our
|   users. in fact they like that the MUA asks them.

Argh! Don't you see that this goes against the intent of the Reply-To
header? Pine has been hacked to conform to the _broken_ behaviour of
many mailing lists.

A reasonable header should notice that the user's email address wasn't
in the To: or Cc: headers, and deduce that the mail is sent to mailing
list.. It can then ask the user if he wants a public (same To and Cc,
and From/Reply-To address in addition (in case the sender isn't on the
list)) or private reply (just From/Reply-To).

Why break what works perfectly by munging headers? Give intelligent
software a chance! There is _no_ excuse for the commercial providers
to offer their customers inferior interfaces. If they don't comply,
don't support them. It _is_ that simple. The providers _deserve_ irate
calls from their customers.

Kjetil T.

Indexed By Date Previous: re: munging reply-to headers (digest V4 #154)
From: Fuzzy <fuzzy @ asarian . org>
Next: Abuse of newsgroup space by a mailing list manager.
From: close @ lunch . engr . sgi . com (Diane Barlow Close)
Indexed By Thread Previous: re: munging reply-to headers (digest V4 #154)
From: Fuzzy <fuzzy @ asarian . org>
Next: Re: munging reply-to headers (digest V4 #154)
From: Chip Rosenthal <chip @ unicom . com>

Search Internet Search