Bob Funchess writes on 7 May 1997 at 11:10:54
On May 7, "J. Daniel Smith" <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com> wrote:
Subject: Re: lists and the conventions they should adopt
Timothy J. Luoma writes on 16 April 1997 at 16:51:55
I want to educate some mailing lists that don't use formal mailing
list software on how to format their message headers.
a big don't would be to NOT insert a Reply-To: header back to the list.
If I've parsed that correctly, I'll have to disagree; there are good and
OK, shame on me for using a double negative.
Anyway, you parsed it correctly: as far a headers for mailing lists
go, the mailing list software itself MUST NOT insert a Reply-To:
header. The Reply-To: header (if any) should be set by the author of
the message.
valid reasons for having reply-to set to the original sender on SOME lists.
I've recently switched one of the lists I manage over to that behavior, and
I understand that in certain cases there can be acceptable reasons for
putting "Reply-To: the-list(_at_)somewhere(_dot_)org" in all messages sent to
the
list. But such people are hopefully also fully aware of the
ramifications of doing so. However, others may not realize what they
are getting into and add Reply-To: headers without carefully thinking
things through. Thus, as a general principle, my advice would be to
NOT do this.
Dan
------------------- message is author's opinion only ------------------
J. Daniel Smith <DanS(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com>
http://www.bristol.com/~DanS
Bristol Technology B.V. +31 33 450 50 50, ...51 (FAX)
Amersfoort, The Netherlands {info,jobs}(_at_)bristol(_dot_)com