[TIP] Reply-to settings

[Ben Finney]

"C. Titus Brown" <ctb at msu.edu> writes:

> So, I'm sure you can appreciate the rich history of this discussion,
> and I hope that agree -- whatever your side -- that there is no really
> *right* configuration option.

The disagreements will no doubt continue. But the arguments in favour of
munging ‘reply-to’ have lost pretty much all force of fact, and are now
relegated to preferences strongly held; and the counter-arguments against
remain.

<URL:http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html>

This forum, by leaving ‘reply-to’ for the intended purpose, and by
providing the widely-implemented RFC 2369 fields to direct discussion
back to the mailing list as appropriate, does the right thing by
everyone.

> and plead for your forbearance on, if not your understanding of, my
> configuration choice.

Thanks again for maintaining a sane discussion forum.

-- 
 \       “Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual |
  `\       profit without individual responsibility.” —Ambrose Bierce, |
_o__)                                   _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney