Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:18:37AM -0700, Robert Anderson wrote:
> > > Now, you're going to say "well that's a broken MUA problem" with respect
> > > to the duplicate replies.  Maybe, but I'm using the default MUA on RH9
> > > (evolution).  That doesn't seem like an outlier to me.  I can't think of
> > > what would be more mainstream, in fact.
> > 
> > I make no claim that mainstream mailers are good, or usable, or correct.
> > Probably some of them are, and some of them aren't, and we should fix
> > the ones that aren't, or send bug reports, or switch, or whatever.
> > 
> > Saying `it's OK to screw some people because I'm lazy' is pretty rude,
> 
> The fact of the matter is that someone gets screwed no matter which way
> it is set up.  That's simple reality.   There is nothing rude about it.

It's simply wrong, too. We don't have this problem @lists.debian.org -
Mail-Followup-To is all you need. Most people respect it these days;
the rest, you just flame until they do.

Your argument is basically "My MUA doesn't have feature X, so please
modify mail as it passes through the MLM to convert feature Y in all
clients to feature X".

My MUA has both features. Kindly stop trying to break one of them. Fix
yours instead.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

pgpZhJa3YbMTB.pgp
Description: PGP signature