On 2004-08-10, s. keeling penned: > Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama: >> >> Fine. I'll get rid of this reply-to, since apparently it's not only >> causing trouble but also spawning conspiracy theories. But I won't >> hold > > fwiw, I think you should give it more time to be tested. I thought it > was pretty inventive. I also thought it was amusing that it was going > to be sending the Cc: to my ISP's admin. :-)
That could be ... interesting. > You're not doing anything exceptionally objectionable. Until somebody > steps up and gives you reasons why this makes you no better than a > baby killer, I'd leave it alone. What's not clear to me is whether, when a reasonable person attempts to send a message to the list in reply to my message with the bogus reply-to, it works as intended. IE, do a significant number of clients interpret "reply-to" as "always reply to this address even if replying to a message that came from a list"? What I want is for people attempting to reply to me *on the list* to easily be able to do so; on the other hand, I want to make it more difficult for people attempting to reply to me *directly* to do so. -- monique Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
