On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:16:25 EDT, Jeff Garzik said: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:03:45PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > > And rather than configuring your MUA to ignore the header... > > > You're using mutt, mutt can be configured so. > > So, you are seriously proposing that EVERYONE reconfigure their MUA, > because you are sending out bad headers? > > Don't you think that is an unscalable solution, and an imposition?
Not only is it unscalable, it almost by definition is anti-social. The only times I've actually seen one in the wild, it's because some subscriber to a mailing list wishes to subvert the list's culture in a manner worse than a Reply-To: header. I considered adding support for Mail-Followup-To: to the exmh MUA, but decided against it, because it would basically mean that every time I got one, I'd have to curse and moan and put the To: and cc: back the way everybody *else* on the list wanted those to headers to behave. Kind of hard to motivate myself to write Tk/Tcl code that will just mean a *worse* user experience for myself...
pgpi19QcM4Mi5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
