On Sat, 28 May 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
You claimed that it was perceived to be a problem based on a
misinterpretation of the meaning of Reply-To as "private". The
problem is with that misinterpretation (apparently yours).
No, I'm just trying to point out some of the real-world ambiguity
around use of Reply-To. The example in 2822 shows the problem, so
please stop claiming there is no problem.
Unlikely to happen -- it is a legitimate use and may be appropriate
in some contexts.
Oh, it was supposed to be a footnote? If you meant restricting use of
Reply-To, no, I don;t think it would be appropriate.
Fine, in that case if the meaning of Reply-To can *not* be made more
specific, it's not suitable for list usage. In which case some other
solution is needed. Eg, 'Foo-Copy-Me'.
("There shouldn't be a way to indicate desire to be copied on list
replies" is an /answer/ but not a solution).
Paul Jakma paul(_at_)clubi(_dot_)ie paul(_at_)jakma(_dot_)org
Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.