From hoogland@astron.nl Wed May 14 11:36:19 2003 From: hoogland@astron.nl (Daan Hoogland) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:36:19 +0200 Subject: [meta-sig] reply-to header Message-ID: <03051412380004.09341@lofar0> HH DD, Im new to python and these lists. I noticed that the main python-list does not set a Reply-to header. I this on purpose? thanks From deirdre@deirdre.net Wed May 14 12:26:00 2003 From: deirdre@deirdre.net (Deirdre Saoirse Moen) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 04:26:00 -0700 Subject: [meta-sig] reply-to header In-Reply-To: <03051412380004.09341@lofar0> Message-ID: On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 03:36 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > HH DD, > > Im new to python and these lists. I noticed that the main python-list > does not > set a Reply-to header. I this on purpose? Why yes, it is. The risk of screwing up by sending something only to one person has less of a potential downside than sending a private reply to a whole bunch of people. I have seen embarrassing private replies sent to lists by mistake. I have even seen credit card numbers sent to lists when they were intended to be sent privately. Additionally, lists with munged reply-tos are often excessively chatty (except those that munge reply-to to be a reply to the original poster only). -- _Deirdre http://deirdre.net "Cannot run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This....is wrong tool." -- Zathras From barry@python.org Wed May 14 13:43:43 2003 From: barry@python.org (Barry Warsaw) Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:43:43 -0400 Subject: [meta-sig] reply-to header In-Reply-To: <03051412380004.09341@lofar0> Message-ID: On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 06:36 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Im new to python and these lists. I noticed that the main python-list > does not > set a Reply-to header. I this on purpose? Yes. Reply-To munging is considered evil (in most quarters :) -Barry http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html