Mail Archives: hobbyplat/2002/04/20/00:26:23
Personally, I don't really care. I'm used to hitting "reply to all"
then culling out the addresses I don't want to hit.
DonW...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DJ Delorie [mailto:dj AT delorie DOT com]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:42 PM
> To: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
> Subject: Re: reply-to
>
>
>
> > I'm certainly not the majority here, but I think history
> has shown this
> > to be the *worse* option. We had a few cases on the Agenda
> lists where
> > a broken autoresponder would've flooded the list if
> Reply-To had been
> > set this way. Either way, it's not a really big deal to me. I'm on
> > lists that are configured both ways.
>
> I've processed about 150,000 messages through my list software, and
> haven't had that kind of problem yet. Of course, I've got some pretty
> interesting filters on the lists too :-)
>
> > I'll bet DJ has read it, but in case anyone else out there hasn't...
> > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>
> Yup. It says nothing about protecting list members from clueless
> individuals who don't understand either their mailers or the proper
> protocols for public vs private discussions. It says nothing about
> email with tens of recipients because mail software keeps adding
> people to the list, unaware of how many copies they're actually
> getting.
>
> But this is a smaller, more focused list, so perhaps these kinds of
> problems own't exist (yet?). Like I said, I'll let the majority
> decide.
- Raw text -