mail to individuals

[Odd]

Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 21:14 +0200, Odd wrote:
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>> Michael Haney wrote:
>>>
>>>> The response from most of the support group to my problem is similar
>>>> to the response of some people in this group over the email issue,
>>>> they suggest replacing the monitor just like people here suggest
>>>> replacing the email client rather than facing up to the real issue at
>>>> hand.  They don't want to be bothered with being fair to every user
>>>> who happens to use their email client of choice because in their minds
>>>> the one they use is the best and everyone else who doesn't do it their
>>>> way is wrong.
> 
>>> OK - but YOU want to break _my_ client's standard's compliant
>>> handling of list mail, by putting in a Reply-To header.  Doing
>>> something wrong because everybody else is doing something wrong,
>>> doesn't make it right.  So sure, go ahead and use a broken client
>>> if you want, but don't demand that the list be crippled because
>>> you insist on doing so.
>  
>> How would the list be crippled by adding a Reply-To: header?
>> It would still include the List-Post: header.
> 
> Args Odd, you're driving me nuts.  Reply-To is to be set by the
> original sender of a message to direct private responses to a specific
> mail account.

99.99% of users don't care.

> Abusing it by mailing list software as you suggest or
> by procmail as Amadee does is still violating the sender's intentions.

No. Just a very, very, very small minority that care about such
things. 99.99% of senders have no intentions at all with regards
to the Reply-TO: header. They don't even know it exists.

> As an example I'm setting it again to redirect responses, and yes
> that mailing list is functional - just try it.

It's functional, but does not work at optimum functionality.

-- 
Odd