[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Reply-to munging

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Reply-to munging
• From: Amelia A.Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:37:09 -0400
• In-reply-to: <601F6322AD71D5118D6C0003472515290660D211@s...>
• Organization: The Mysthical World of Talsever!
• References: <601F6322AD71D5118D6C0003472515290660D211@s...>

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:41:27 -0500
"Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@s...> wrote:
> I've been using mailing lists off and on for some 20 years now and
> this is the first one I've encountered that behaves this way.
> Personally, I find it a pain that dialogue by default is "off list",
> maybe I'm just too used to"open source" mind sets (where off list is a
> bad thing)...

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Munging is not associated with open source, necessarily.  It all depends
upon which side of the religious issue (as represented by the above URL,
the first I got with the google search string "reply-to munging
considered harmful") the list administrator is on.

In a nutshell, reply-to munging excludes the use of the reply-to header
by an individual, because if used, the list will overwrite it.  If the
capability happeens to be needed, it's lost irremediably.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
What makes me think I could start clean-slated?
        The hardest to learn was the least complicated.
                                                -- Emily Saliers

• References:
  • RE: Reply-to munging
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Reply-to munging
• Next by Date: From grammar based file to xml file
• Previous by thread: RE: Reply-to munging
• Next by thread: From grammar based file to xml file
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread