[Fwd: Re: [H-GEN] Open source firm releases patch for IE spoofing flaw]

[Andrae Muys]

Greg Black wrote:
> 
> Hopefully, the list will stay as it is.  For the record, I'm on
> hundreds of lists and very few of them set the reply-to header
> and I'm always pleased to see lists drop that damaging feature.
> 

On this issue I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Going though my mail 
archives (and ignoring humbug for the moment) I have a ratio of 6:16 
lists using reply-to : not.  I have ignored announce lists, as I am 
unaware of any argument to support setting a reply-to for such lists.

In support of reply-to I consider the following:

I consider it rude to send private duplicates when replying to list.
It is irritating to have to be forced to 'default' to editing headers to 
obtain 'correct' behaviour.
It encourages people taking discussion off list, I consider any list 
that dosn't set reply-to to be making an implicit preference for 
off-line discussions.
It often leads to awkward situations with help contributions/requests 
being sent privately when the responder desires them public.

These last two I consider serious flaws with the no-reply-to school of 
thought, I have yet to find an even faintly credible attempt to counter 
to them.

Andrae


-- 
  Andrae Muys    <andrae.muys at braintree.com.au>
  Engineer       Braintree Communications
   "Now, allowing captured continuations to be inspected and altered at
    runtime (including binding mutation, complete rebinding of scopes,
    and call tree mutation)...  *that* is really evil.  And, I should
    point out, quite useful."        - Dan Sugalski