[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To: handling

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:44:29 -0400 
Barry A Warsaw <barry@zope.com> wrote:

>     Field Min number Max number Notes reply-to 0 1

Thanks.

> Are you suggesting that we collapse Reply-To: even if we don't add
> one ourselves?  

No.  I specifically think we should collapse duplicate list
addresses in the Reply-To.  Duplicate other addresses in the
Reply-To are likely not good, but are also not our responsibility.

Note: This does expose an abuse vector:

  I don't like Bubba.

  I send a troll to a busy list with Reply-To set to Bubba.

  Bubba is inundated with unwanted mail.

  There is little/nothing Bubba can do about it.

  I get away clean.

This abuse vector currently exists for non-reply-to munging lists.
The only difference is that with the change I'm advocating is that
it now also exists for reply-to munging lists where it didn't
before.

Its easy to view this as either a Good or Bad Thing.  I side on
adding to any extant Reply-To being a Good Thing in balance.

> I would think that we should only collapse if we're adding a
> value.

Agreed.

-- 
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw@kanga.nu               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.