> From: Erwann ABALEA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, David Lang wrote:
> > [getting rid of reply-to mangling would reduce mail looping]
> And a lot of users would be forced to rewrite the destinator of each
> email, since the sender is not [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it's
> an even worse solution.
As people opposed to reply-to mangling have been saying for years, decent
MUAs don't need it to generate the correct address. Just reply to all and
delete the author's address, leaving the list address.
See http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, for example.
> > It's a case of being more tolorent of illegally configured MTAs.
> Since they're *illegaly* configured MTA, and since well configured MTA
> exist (hopefully), then the misconfiguration shouldn't be accepted.
Fine. We don't accept misconfigured MTAs. Have they now magically
vanished? They have not.
The debate over reply-to mangling has become religious, and openssl-users
isn't the place to hash it out. Personally, I'm opposed; it makes replying
to the author more difficult, and tends to produce personal messages on the
list, which I find more troublesome than list messages accidentally sent to
me (or by me to someone else).
Michael Wojcik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MERANT
Department of English, Miami University
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
