OFFTOPIC Re: [Mailman-Users] Archive URL in postings (2.1b3)

[Kyle Rhorer]

On Wednesday 30 October 2002 13:17, Dave Sherohman wrote:
> To: munging destroys information just as clearly as Reply-To:
> munging.

I have to disagree that Reply-To: munging destroys information.  Here's 
why -- most MUA's I have used do not by default show the Reply-To: 
header for either incoming or outgoing mail.  Some will let you 
configure them to show it, some won't.  Many (most?) users have never 
seen a Reply-To: header (or field if you're speaking of entering info 
into the MUA for sending), so they don't rely on it to give them any 
meaningful information.  If a list administrator wants to preserve the 
From: header but cause replies to go back to the list, then IMO 
Reply-To: munging is an appropriate way to cause such behavior.  In 
contrast, I'm leaning toward the opinion that changing the To: header 
is Bad Juju®.

> Faking the To: header is no different.  The mail isn't
> being sent to you personally, so it shouldn't claim that it is.

That point is what tipped my scale.

Kyle
-- 
Since the general civilizations of mankind, I believe there are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual
and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden
usurpations.
                                                  -James Madison