[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