Re: Header Reply-To

From: John Cowan (
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 16:39:35 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

    Thomas Lotze scripsit:

    > is there a reason mails from the Unicode list don't have a Reply-To
    > header pointing to Sorry to those who have received
    > private mail from me which was actually meant for the list...

    This is a very controversial point. For an argument on the don't-add-Reply-To
    side, see (no connection
    between unicom and unicode).

    In a word, it is much worse to send private mail unintentionally to a list
    than to send list mail unintentionally to just one person. The latter can
    be undone, the former cannot.

    In addition, some people actually need the "Reply-To" functionality because
    they read in one place and post in another. Header munging by lists breaks
    that. Some lists add "Reply-To" only if it's not already present, but that
    causes utterly unpredictable behavior for everyone else.

    Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
    Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme):
    One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically
    Challenges poets who / Don't have the time.     --robison who's at texas dot net

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 17:16:41 EST