On 1 May 1998, Paul O Bartlett <pobart(_at_)access(_dot_)digex(_dot_)net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Philip Guenther wrote (excerpt):
If you don't want the direct copy, you should, if you can, put a
Reply-To: procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
header in your outgoing messages.
Of course, the list could do as well-run lists do and insert the
Reply-To: automatically so users would not have to fumble around
with special recipes or add one-shot special headers on their own.
Unfortunately, the procmail list seems to be an orphan, so I don't
know who could make this much-needed change.
Actually, this is a misuse of the "Reply-To:" header. When I set
a "Reply-To:" in my posts to mailing lists, I do it to allow people to
reply to me in private, and because I don't want to receive mail at
the address in the "From:" header. Any decent mailer should allow you
to make a distinction between private replies (only to the author),
list replies (only to the list), and group replies (to the author,
plus the list and all other recipients of the initial message). The
"Reply-To:" is there for a reason --- and that reason is _not_ to allow
MLMs to redirect the replies. If you really need to give others a hint
whether or not you want to receive a private copy of the replies to
your messages to the lists, you can either set the "Reply-To:" yourself
(which is still an abuse, but does what you want), or, better, follow
the suggestion of the DRUMS committee, and set a "Mail-Followup-To:"
(and pester the developers of your mailer to support it).
Anyway, the practice of abusing the "Reply-To:" by the MLMs has been
plaguing mailing lists for so long, that I don't expect it to disappear
any time soon. But please, the least we can do about it is to stop
preaching it as a good idea.
Regards,
Liviu
--
Dr. Liviu Daia e-mail: daia(_at_)stoilow(_dot_)imar(_dot_)ro
Institute of Mathematics web page: http://www.imar.ro/~daia
of the Romanian Academy PGP key: finger
daia(_at_)stoilow(_dot_)imar(_dot_)ro