On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:47:36AM +1000, Rod... Whitworth wrote:

> As to your comments re the URL below: I did not reply to the original
> sender because, like you, I want to avoid zealotry.

> You will note that he did not address the prime point of my original
> post (snip quoted above) and that is: This list sends out messages
> with NO REPLY-TO HEADER LINE or at least that's how they arrive and
> my MTA does not delete or edit headers. Given his fervour to preserve
> the original author's Reply-To I figured he'd be upset by it being
> deleted. Ho-hum...

AFAIK, no reply-to header was deleted. neither postfix nor the
postfix-users list touches reply-to at all. if it's there, it leaves it
alone. if it's not there, then it doesn't add one.

in other words, the list (and postfix) behaved *exactly* as they should.
i.e. don't munge reply-to.

not every message has or needs a reply-to.

> >>>see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
> >>>reply-to should *NOT* be set by mailing lists.
> >
> >The person who wrote this is simply wrong. But that is another
> >religious war.

no, the person who wrote it is 100% correct.

the only people i ever see who think it's wrong are newbies using crappy
windows MUAs who are too lazy to learn the difference between the
group-reply button and the private-reply button....and who think it's
an unreasonable chore to trim excess addresses from CC: lines.

given that these are generally the same kind of people who think that
it's OK to quote an entire message for a one-line reply (it is too big
a chore to actually edit a quoted message), i don't see much benefit in
treating their opinions as being worth anything.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <castaz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
 -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]