On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 15:42:49 +0200 Teemu Likonen <tliko...@iki.fi> wrote:
Hello Teemu,
>It's not broken; it's perfectly valid and allowed.
My mistake; I didn't mean broken in the non-RFC compliant sense, but
broken in the sense of "Not what I want to take place". I set a
Reply-To because that's where I want the reply to go. If I want to take
things elsewhere, it's up to me to change headers used, etc. so the reply
goes to the correct place.
To *deliberately* not comply with somebody's request(1) is a failure(2).
One that will, in my little corner of the universe, land the perpetrator
in a kill-file. Failing to comply without adequate (in my view)
justification will land them in that kill-file a good deal sooner.
(1) So long as those wishes affect only the person(s) directly involved.
For example, should a request require ppl to top-post their replies to
posts on a list where interpolated posting is the norm and rightly, the
respondent should decline and, possibly, do their own kill-filing.
(2) Mistakes do happen, so I usually give people a couple of chances.
--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods
pgpx_zkHomz93.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
