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

[MJ Ray]

I'll reply to a different email of Andrew's, as the last one is too 
terse.

On 2003-08-23 11:06:02 +0100 Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> 
wrote:
> List-* is not a substitute for M-F-T

You're looking at it the wrong way round.  M-F-T is not a good 
substitute for List-* and even fails at being a good substitute for 
Reply-To.

> [...] Example: given only the List-* headers, how do you describe
> that you *want* to receive personal copies of list mail?

You set Reply-To accordingly.  Maybe even mention it, just to be sure.

> As for "non-standard", I stipulate that I am at least as qualified to
> hand down pronouncements of standard-ness as the IETF
> cabal. [...]

You have no peer review, independence or track record.  If anything, 
you have a track record of advocating and coding standards breaches.

> For example, if you subscribe to the notion that the IETF cabal is the
> almighty source of truth, justice, and honour [...]

This just goes off the deep end.  I suspect that mutt users are in 
denial at least as far as users of other MUAs that do not support 
mailing lists properly.  ("We're not broken.  Reality must be fixed!")

--
MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://address@hidden