X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to hobbyplat-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:42:20 -0400
Message-Id: <200204200242.g3K2gKJ32623@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20020420023009.GC394@willow.seitz.com> (message from Ross
	Vandegrift on Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:30:09 -0400)
Subject: Re: reply-to
References: <200204192233 DOT g3JMXx830992 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20020420023009 DOT GC394 AT willow DOT seitz DOT com>
Reply-To: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: hobbyplat AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> 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.