[ic] "Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful

[Sam Batschelet]

On 12/14/05 11:45 AM, "Mike Heins" <mike at perusion.com> wrote:

> Quoting Sam Batschelet (sam at westbranchresort.com):
>> Mike, Kevin, Jon, All,
>> 
>>   I just got blasted for having my mailing list setup like Interchanges with
>> "Reply-To" Munging, and was wondering if you might want to consider this?
>> 
>> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>> 
>> Just a thought
> 
> We have been operating this way for seven years with no complaints. As
> far as I am concerned, the matter is closed; I don't want to discuss it
> any more; any further discussion will have to go on without me. 8-)
> 
> The link you were sent is very, very, outdated -- the author refers
> to the "elm" mailer, which is ancient and not in use hardly at all
> (mutt has replaced it almost entirely). Though it is dated 2002, I
> am guessing it is minor edits.
> 
> Some people have a different view of mail lists, and that is fine. But
> to have them subject others to the religious fervor of their views
> strikes me as a bit grandiose. If they can't state the "harm" in
> the first screen of their diatribe, then it isn't that harmful.

No complaints here Mike I thought it was foolish myself why not have where
you are sending the message to in the header but I can tell its a touchy
subject so I will bow out gracefully.  When I read the page I thought that
to myself as well ok where is the harm part.  But as such a big deal was
made of it I thought I would forward the link.

-Sam