[Lincs] Archive is private from now on!

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-09-15 06:10:45 +0100 Andy Davidson <andyd at lug.org.uk> wrote:

> http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

I've demolished that Hill piece elsewhere before. In short:
1. RFC 2822 obsoletes 822 and does not contain that mistake;
2. List posts being sent only to list (as List-Post clients can) 
satisfies minimal bandwidth too;
3. List-Post also adds the ability to reply only to list, without 
removing the ability to reply only to author (without hand-editing);
4. Reply-To munging simply does break reasonable mailers: Hill seems 
to think mail clients need "reply", "reply to From", "reply to all" 
and "reply to list" which is unreasonable;
5. Reply-To munging reduces choice;
6. "reply to author" is "reply to Reply-To, or From if no Reply-To" 
not the "reply to From" that Hill claims;
7. List-Post also satisfies least total work, with a supportive mail 
client;
8. People are responsible for their own mistakes, but that's no excuse 
to try to trick them;
9. It removes something, the norm of replying privately with sensitive 
answers;
10. It isn't what this person wants and I don't arrogantly assume to 
speak for others.

If the list software allows reply-to munging to be a user option, that 
may help. If mail clients were fixed to support List-Post and friends 
(RFC 2369), then reply-to policy could be set at the mail client and 
that would magically fix all lists, not just Lincs LUG. I've patched 
my mail client and sent the patch upstream. Some major ones like mutt 
still don't support List-Post. How about yours?

-- 
MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
  Creative copyleft computing - http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
http://www.thewalks.co.uk stand 13,Lynn Carnival,12 Sep