Re: [tlug] reply-to headers

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-09-05 21:27 +0900 (Fri), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Godwin Stewart writes:
>  > 
>  > If they reply via "reply to list" and not "reply to sender", whose
>  > fault is it if their resumé appears on the list?
> 
> Theirs.  But under TLUG policy, if they reply to sender, it will go to
> the list anyway, and that is TLUG's fault.

Right. This is my key point.

On 2008-09-05 13:32 +0100 (Fri), Godwin Stewart wrote:

> 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 :)

"Reply-to" is not a crutch, though I would accept an argument that
this list's use of it is. Reply-to is a very useful standard mechanism
that lets me do things like ensure that the default reply to a message
of mine doesn't go to some of the other recipients of a message. And
it works much more reliably than putting text in the message saying,
"please make sure you reply only to...."

Also, I do believe you've misinterpreted Stephen here. Your reply makes
sense in the context of an MUA processing headers, but not in the sense
of generating headers, which latter case is what I believe Stephen was
talking about.

Basically, anybody who doesn't want two copies of a reply has the
choice of setting his reply-to header to send things to the list only.
It appears that a lot of people who don't want two copies refuse to
configure their own MUA to do do this, and instead demand that the list
software be configured to set their personal preference for everyone.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com