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

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 05:24:53PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-08-22 08:20:11 +0100 Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
> >Mail-Followup-To is all you need. Most people respect it these days;
> >the rest, you just flame until they do.
> 
> ...and we just flame you back until you get a clue and use a MUA that 
> does the right thing with List-* instead of using a non-standard 
> header.

List-* is not a substitute for M-F-T; it can only reply to the
list. The whole point of M-F-T is to provide an equivalent to
Reply-To. Example: given only the List-* headers, how do you describe
that you *want* to receive personal copies of list mail?

As for "non-standard", I stipulate that I am at least as qualified to
hand down pronouncements of standard-ness as the IETF
cabal. "Standard" is a word with no useful meaning in free software.

For example, if you subscribe to the notion that the IETF cabal is the
almighty source of truth, justice, and honour, then you should be
using webdav for your revision control as defined in rfc3253
(standards-track, at least as good as a wiki, and certainly better
than cvs) and not arch (some "non-standard" thing). Note that any
claims about interoperability will apply equally here.

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

pgpQnNnw4SviF.pgp
Description: PGP signature