[Mailman-Developers] Reply-To munging considered *carefully*

[Barry Warsaw]

Since this thread has devolved into the same unwinnable emacs-vs-vim  
argument about Reply-To munging, I'm going to disengage.

Mailman's official policy won't change.  It considers Reply-To munging  
to be a bad thing in the general case, and will discourage its use.   
It will still supply the tools to allow list owners to do it, but it  
may make such options more obscure.  Support for Reply-To munging will  
not be removed if only so we can tell list owners to stfu, or to  
provide them cover to tell their users to stfu. :)

Mailman also recognizes that there are a few limited legitimate use  
cases for a mailing list to indicate where follow up postings should  
go, and that there is currently no other way to support these use  
cases than Reply-To munging.

Any attempt to impose additional semantics or responsibilities on  
Reply-To will only make matters worse.  I support Stephen's efforts to  
rally consensus and eventual standards around an unambiguous less- 
contentious <wink> list-domain header for these use cases.

-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-developers/attachments/20091014/9bfa4dc1/attachment.pgp>