Reply-To header

[Peter Decker]

On 10/3/05, Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Indeed, and that's by design: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Of course, that's only one side of the argument:

http://www.blackgate.net/consulting/reply-to_munging_useful.html

On lists like this, where everyone benefits by sharing information, it
seems pretty lame to hide behind purist arguments about Reply-To:
headers. The default behavior should be the one most useful to the
list. Think for a moment how many useful bits of information you've
missed because the default for this list it to make conversations
private.

--

# p.d.