On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
There is therefore a mail standards reason not to munge the headers, and
it rests in the rules about origin fields and in the potential for lost
functionality.
I should have included the standard links to both sides of this
discussion:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml
I find the "Principle of Minimal Bandwidth" and "Principle of Least Total
Work" arguments in the latter match my personal preferences here better
(particularly as someone who only cares about on-list replies even more
than the 90% of the time given in that example), while respecting that
true RFC-compliance is also a reasonable perspective.
It's also clear to me you'll never change the mind of anyone who had
adopted a firm stance on either side here. My spirit for e-mail pedantry
arguments was broken recently anyway, when I had someone I'm compelled to
communicate with regularly complain that they couldn't follow my
top-posted messages and requested me to reply "like everybody else" to
their mail in the future.
--
* Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
