Re: [tlug] reply-to headers

[Godwin Stewart <gstewart@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> You would think that TLUG people would have potty-trained MUAs that
> can handle the concept of setting Reply-To and flexibly handle
> replying, but nooooooooo.....

Indeed. RFC2369 headers work perfectly well without the need for a Reply-To:
crutch unless you're using a mailer that isn't "potty-trained" as you
colourfully put it :)  Not only that, but with the high technical standard
that TLUG sets itself, you'd have thought that it'd be *expected* of members
to use standards-compliant MUAs.

I'm guessing this subject has been gone over many a time and TPTB have
decided it was better to wipe subscribers' backsides for them (to use a
similar analogy to yours), even for the subscribers who find it mildly
demeaning that someone should think they need someone to do it for them.

-- 
G. Stewart - gstewart@example.com

Sign spotted in a Laundromat:
AUTOMATIC WASHING MACHINES: PLEASE REMOVE ALL YOUR
CLOTHES WHEN THE LIGHT GOES OUT

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature