Incoming from Monique Y. Mudama: > 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 > > > > 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.
It's certain to (eventually) come to my attention. He's a true bofh. :-) > > 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"? Considering the difficulty you're having implementing this, I would definitely have a line at the bottom (top?) of your posts demanding that replies go to the list, and to **** with anyone who complains about said line. > 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. This seems eminently reasonable. This is how mailing lists are _supposed_ to work. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling - - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
