On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:00:08 +0000 (BST), Philip Hazel wrote:
>My recollection of the flame wars is that the world is divided into two
>camps, each of which strongly holds to their view of the "right" way to use
>Reply-To. The only agreement of any kind was that a simple "Reply-To" header
>was probably inadequate to provide the different services people wanted it
>to.
Oh, I agree. I just hate people throwing that URL in my face when it is
completely wrong on all point and is something, if they cared to read the
discussion board attached to the URL, that I had replied to on 5/18/98. I
can see both views, just not agree with them and hate being told that it is
flat out wrong when the RFC clearly states it is right.
>(In other words, the two camps were seeing it as providing different
>kinds of service.)
I see it as providing both with a clear deliniation of who gets to set
it. 822 references sender, the list is the sender. *shrug*
>The only way forward appeared to be designing some new header lines to
>express more clearly the different kinds of information people want to add
>to their messages. ("Do/don't include a cc to me if replying to the list" or
>"Use this address for personal replies, that one for "to everybody" replies"
>etc.) Since the Working Group is consolidating the standards, not extending
>them, this idea was left for someone else to pick up.
MMMM, I'm not too concerned about the "cc" part, just some simple way to
preserve the original reply-to so that the last remaining semi-valid
arguement against it can be avoided. Placing in an Original-Reply-To
header, or some such. But anyway.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
