[tpop3d-discuss] Re: OFFTOPIC: reply-to munging

Paul Warren pdw at ex-parrot.com
Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:17:42 +0100


On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 10:53:39AM +0200, Marcin Sochacki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 09:25:56AM +0100, Paul Warren wrote:
> > I'm going round in circles, but suppose that the user really had wanted
> > to email Chris privately, that Chris had set his Reply-To: because
> > he was unable to set his From: address as he wished, and that this list
> > munged Reply-Tos - how would he achieve it?  It's not as far fetched as
> > it sounds.
> 
> It _is_ far fetched :)
> I can set my From: freely, I can't see what's the problem.

My University used to impose restrictions on setting From: addresses.
Many multi-user Unix boxes do the same.  I wouldn't be surprised if many
corporate email systems impose the same restrictions.

> And also take a look at traffic generated with Mutt's group-reply feature.
> Not only you send the mail to the list, but also put CC: to private
> addresses. Usually it doubles the traffic generated, and people get
> duplicates of mail.

It does increase traffic, but it doesn't double it.  As I say, I *like*
this feature.  SMTP batching means that usually the bandwidth overhead
should be minimal.  I get enough spam to know where my delete key is.

> >  - Reply-to munging leads to accidental, and occassionally embarrassing
> >    on-list replies.
> 
> Let me cite you: if you don't check what's in Reply-To then you are going
> to have serious problems with using email in general.

Precisely - so we agree that whatever you do, you can't guard against
people who don't know how to use their mail clients :-)

> >  - You know I'm right :-)
> 
> Obviously, there are some lists, where Reply-To munging can be considered
> harmful (guru lists, announcement-type lists, etc.) The make maybe 5-10%
> of all lists. For most uses munging is USEFUL.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one...

Paul