[clue-tech] Reply-To?

[David L. Anselmi]

Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:13:03 -0700
> David L. Anselmi wrote:
>
>> That's 'cause your MUA sucks.
>
> Sylpheed doesn't. :)

Hmmm.  That looks like it's an easier switch than Mutt (from Seamonkey) and getting off mbox would 
be nice.  I think I'll try it.

But I bet it still sucks (all MUAs suck seems to be one of the laws of physics ;-)

> Oh, and I have read 'Reply-to Munging Considered Harmful', and I
> understand the point, except that the point of a mailing list such as the
> ones we run is to 'talk' on the list. As Roy said. Not adding a Reply-to
> header would be counter to that purpose.

My opinion is that Reply-To doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the sender.  By using it we take 
away some of the sender's freedom (that we don't need to take because we have list headers that can 
do the same thing).  So if MUAs didn't suck it would be equally easy to make a reply to the list or 
to the sender (you've seen "mail me off list if you're interested posts, right?) and the Right Thing 
would happen if you weren't thinking about it.

So the whole reason for the argument is that MUAs suck.  Who would have guessed that that would be 
the hardest piece of software to write? :-)

(Welcome to Dave's world.  Everything is black and white here.)

Dave