• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Reply-to munging
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:05:31 -0700
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1025-E0CC3C4C71B911D794E90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r01050400-1025-E0CC3C4C71B911D794E90003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji writes:
> >The question of whether or not to munge reply-to is a guaranteed
> >flame-war starter, but I just wanted to put in my 2c that XML-DEV does
> >this rightly, regardless of other technical issues.
>
> And I agree with Uche on this point, adding that I wish more people
> would trim the recipients list when they reply.


+1.

Also, if posters would reply To: the list (as Simon just did)
instead of To: the sender and Cc: the list (as Uche just did),
then "Reply to list" will have a better chance of working
in most MUAs.


(... and refrain from top-posting, sending HTML, using
vCard signatures, etc., ... but that's a losing battle.)


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Reply-to munging
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• References:
  • Re: Reply-to munging
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid SyntacticRig or Mortis"
• Next by Date: Re: Reply-to munging
• Previous by thread: Re: Reply-to munging
• Next by thread: Re: Reply-to munging
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread