[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

From: Jonathan Walther
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 03:41:26 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:18:59PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
Remember TCP supplanted the "official" OSI standard networking

That's a silly argument (besides the fact that TCP _preceded_ the OSI
stuff) -- TCP _works_, and works well, that's why it won.  Reply-To
munging, on the other hand, works kind of, some of the time, and
persists mainly because people are stupid and software is broken.

The problem is, NOT doing Reply-To munging also works kind of, some of
the time.  When you send mail to a mailing list, you should expect that
the default is for people to reply to the list.  If you are sending a
message to the list, then odds are you are sending it from a valid mail
address that can be replied to, otherwise you wouldn't be sending the
message with the expectation that it will get through.  For 99% of
cases, Reply-To: munging works.

I am getting a lot of private emails FROM THIS LIST which obviously
belong on the list, and had no need to be private messages to myself,
because of lack of Reply-To: munging.

I use mutt; I use the 'g' key.  But my INBOX tells me that a lot of
people on this list do not.



It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.

                    Geek House Productions, Ltd.

 Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
 QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
 General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   address@hidden
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2

Attachment: pgprFgHEYUwAr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]