[melbourne-pug] last post

[David Nugent]

> On 26 May 2015, at 4:32 am, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> 
> Tennessee Leeuwenburg <tleeuwenburg at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
> 
> It really isn't, though. Setting “Reply-To” to the mailing list is
> significantly more harmful than leaving that field alone.


^^ This.


> * The failure mode of “don't do anything with Reply-To” is that
>  sometimes people send a message to an individual, that they *intended*
>  to go more public.
> 
> * The failure mode of “set Reply-To to the mailing list” is that
>  sometimes people send a message publicly, that they *intended* to be
>  private to an individual.

Adding:

* Changing a Reply-To also overwrites the original author’s Reply-To, which may be contrary to the purpose of setting it (admittedly doing so in a “public” mailing list is kinda silly and you’d expect it would not work as it should). Still, i’m old school enough to maintain the view that when it comes to email headers, correctness is important - anything else quickly leads to non-standard behaviour. Kinda like complaining after the horse has bolted (20+ years on! :-)). Old, old argument in any case, and status quo is probably a good idea.

Good luck Brian, btw. Might be in the same position myself soon...

Cheers,
/d