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

[Jonathan Walther]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 07:18:59PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > Remember TCP supplanted the "official" OSI standard networking
> > protocols.
>
> That's a silly argument (besides the fact that TCP _preceded_ the OSI
> stuff) -- TCP _works_, and works well, that's why it won.  Reply-To
> munging, on the other hand, works kind of, some of the time, and
> persists mainly because people are stupid and software is broken.

The problem is, NOT doing Reply-To munging also works kind of, some of
the time.  When you send mail to a mailing list, you should expect that
the default is for people to reply to the list.  If you are sending a
message to the list, then odds are you are sending it from a valid mail
address that can be replied to, otherwise you wouldn't be sending the
message with the expectation that it will get through.  For 99% of
cases, Reply-To: munging works.

I am getting a lot of private emails FROM THIS LIST which obviously
belong on the list, and had no need to be private messages to myself,
because of lack of Reply-To: munging.

I use mutt; I use the 'g' key.  But my INBOX tells me that a lot of
people on this list do not.

Jonathan

--

   It's not true unless it makes you laugh,                           
            but you don't understand it until it makes you weep.      

   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                    Geek House Productions, Ltd.

 Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
 QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
 General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998

Phone:   604-435-1205
Email:   address@hidden
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC  V5R2W2

pgprFgHEYUwAr.pgp
Description: PGP signature