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

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Michael B. Trausch writes:

 > Now, _this_ is where the situation is _bad_.  It's _awful_.  If every
 > single ML worked in precisely the same way, there would be _zero_
 > issues.

Well, yes.  That's why there are RFCs, so that software and its users
can interoperate over the Internet.  You either really don't
understand the relevant RFCs (the hypothesis I now favor) or you are
advocating nonconformance.  Both inadvertant and deliberate
nonconformance are bad for the Internet, even if short-circuiting the
RFC process seems like it would be real convenient to you and hundreds
of millions of others right now.

 > Forgive me, y'all, for thinking I could talk from a user's point of
 > view.  I suppose I should know better.

We're *all* talking from the user's point of view.  We all eat our own
dogfood here, you know.  The reason your proposals are getting treated
so roughly is that they involve using *other* people's resources to
serve *your* purpose, and non-conformance to an Internet standard that
has been 40 years in the making.  But the problem that you want to fix
is that despite having all the information needed to DTRT, *your* MUA
doesn't DWYM!

The solution to that is obvious: fix your MUA, either by fixing it or
by switching to a better one.  Until you explain to us why that
obvious solution is infeasible, you're going to get very little
sympathy when you ask us (ie, wearing our list manager hats) to
conform to a non-standard that you propose, in violation of an ancient
and beloved real standard.