2 Feb
2004
2 Feb
'04
1:41 p.m.
Hallo,
Joern Nettingsmeier hat gesagt: // Joern Nettingsmeier wrote:
This reply also got a good reply here:
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt
Frank Barknecht wrote:
bad ;)
I must have missed this complains, but until now I
also missed, that
the Reply-to is indeed munged. As this is considered bad practice for
a lot of reasons
as well as good practice for about the same number of reasons
SF considers it bad:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1
(search google
for "reply-to munging harmful")
search google for "reply-to munging considered useful" :-D well, personally i like the reply-to, and imho
that's exactly what
it's for. we've had this discussion a couple times iirc. but then,
if you want to vote again, be my guest.
Well, I wasn't aware that this was discussed here before. Actually I
don't think, this has to be discussed at all, as it's one of those
topics, where everyone has a solid, unchangable opinion.
Thus these are my last words on this topic: personally I'm strictly
against munging, the Lion's discussion may have showed one of the
reasons, we all don't use Outlook, so we in general have List-reply-to
functions in out mail clients, all SF lists don't munge, you cannot
carry a thread across alsa-user, and so on. The arguments are
probably known without me having to repeat them.
So: *If* there is another vote in the future, count me in as
anti-munger. If not, well, then not.
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__