On 16-Dec-1997, Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please check out http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html . The page > contains several arguments against the use of "Reply-To". I fully agree to > what Ian said.
Please don't quote this URL as if all the issues in this web page haven't already been discussed. Just because it's on a web page and uses the trendy "considered harmful" phrase doesn't mean it's relevant, and doesn't mean it's right. The reply-to munging solution is unfairly attacked, while the current configuration has at least as many drawbacks. The fact is, the current mail RFCs are not designed to cope with mailing lists. New mailers do a better job, but when we have new mail standards that have better mailing list support, their solutions will be considered impure too. I've also presented another solution, which is to just clearly document the problems on the web pages, so that developers are aware they need to be careful, and they should upgrade their software. I've offered to do the work for this solution, but haven't receieved any feedback on whether it should be done or not (I am truly more interested in stopping the various mail problems than winning any arguments). Tyson. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
