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

[Russell Stuart]

This has the feel of a religious war.  It seems unlikely the two camps
will ever agree.

To be fair there was a meeting where the reply to was discussed, and a
number of people (more than 10?) attended.  There was a vote, and as I
recall I was the lone dissenter.

Is a compromise possible?  If someone were to submit a patch to mailman
that made reply-to munging an option the user could turn off and on,
what is the odds of it being accepted?

On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 11:45, Andrae Muys wrote:
> [ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
> [ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]
> 
> 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
>