----- Original Message -----
From: "jpinkerton" <johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Fw: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpinkerton" <johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Wooledge" <greg(_at_)wooledge(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Google's gmail.com checks spf records!
Roger Moser (Roger(_dot_)Moser(_at_)rama(_dot_)pamho(_dot_)net) wrote:
Take for example this very mail that you are just reading.
Where should the reply go when you click "Reply", to me or to the
list?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
"Some administrators claim that Reply-To munging makes it easier
for users to respond to the entire list, and helps encourage list
traffic. These benefits are fallacious. Moreover, Reply-To can have
harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. If you think Reply-To munging
is a good idea, I hope I can change your mind."
(If I didn't post it, someone else would....)
--
Greg Wooledge |
greg(_at_)wooledge(_dot_)org |
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
Truth belongs to everybody."
- The Red Hot Chili Peppers
"..... but lies are used more often"
- The Ice Cold Realists
:-)
Thank you Greg - I knew I wasn't the only person to think falsifying
ReplyTo: is a bad thing. As I said - the IETF mail-list doesn't do it -
and
they come up with the standards, No?
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492