Re: Replies to the list

[Kaz Kylheku]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:40:27 -0700, David Rogers
<address@hidden> wrote:
> * Michael Welsh Duggan <address@hidden> [2010-08-30 18:04]:
>>Yes, there is a reason.
>>
>>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>>http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt
> 
> 
> The logic at those links is impeccable but irrelevant. The "harm" in
> "reply-to considered harmful" affects only the elegance of the config
> files of a few of the l33t.

If that's what you think, you maybe did not really understand the
reply-to-harmful article. (I don't see anything there about
l33t config files being harmed).

> The harm in multiple misdirected replies is
> greater, and a reply not to the list is by definition misdirected.

If you see a message from Bob in your inbox, and reply
using Bob's mail address, that is a properly directed reply,
which may come in two flavors: with or without a cc: to the
discussion.