these discussions, some had them already about 15 years ago, when
a famous mail expander added a feature of automatically adding
reply-to to the headers, in order to help brain dead end user
systems to simply say : reply.
This was opening a pandora box or error messages bounced to
a list. In order to maintain this feature, a rather complex
mechanism, in fact heuristics, to detect them was implemented
(with a rather limited number of 'buggy' systems).
Mail system that do not distingusih beween envelope addresses
and mail headers, and gateways that have to translate
From: , reply-To, Sender: MAIL FROM to one single address
are still there, and it seems that they are even growing.
If the maintainers of these lists are not able to use a mail exploder
that handles these error case, and this is very difficult,
if not impossible, then may be reasonable not to add a reply-to.
People can not longer just use reply, they need to use some
'reply to all' or whatever.
Others just want to reply just to the orginator, sometimes.
What is worse? requiring a 'listmaster' to follow the list
or getting a reply just to an originator and the list cannot
participate from time to time?
have fun
Peter Sylvester
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
