[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having > it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken* > behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing > because some mailers are broken out there? No such thing. It is pretty clear to me (after the discussion on DRUMS) that there currently is no "perfectly standard" Reply-To: processing; the header is used in too many incompatible ways. After much discussion, the experts seem to agree in only one point: the way Reply-To: is used for replies in _most_ programs is essentially broken. We're even considering deprecating Reply-To: completely in favour of several new headers. No decision has been reached yet, however. > If your mailer is broken, > protest to the author, don't ask other people to break email > conventions to cater to broken mailers. There are _no_ universally accepted, useful conventions for Reply-To:. Sad but true. 822 was too imprecise in it's definition, plus current mailing lists were unknown back then. > Yes, but there are times when discussion is taken > off-line. You break the reply-to address, and people can no longer be > reached off-line. Such gratitous breakage just for broken mailers? If you can't get your mailer to reply to From: when you want to, complain to it's programmer - it's broken. (As to "From: is broken", Reply-To: was _never_ meant to fix that. From: _should_ be settable by the mail sender - read 822 if you don't believe me. Mailers (or system setups) that don't allow you to do that are _clearly_ broken. From: is not, and never has been, meant for any sort of authentication info.) > electronic mail standards and convention, is none of our business. We > *shoul* *not* break it. Sorry. No can do. You will always break it for someone. > I think people should get decent mail user agents. There don't seem to be many that match your definition of "decent". (Incidentally, that's part of why I'm still thinking about writing my own.) Maybe we should make a list. You seem to like GNUS; obviously, that's no solution for people who hate Emacs. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
