Carbon Copies (CC's)

[Paul Tomblin]

Quoting Matthias Andree (matthias.andree at gmx.de):
> Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful has some _*COMPELLING*_ points, and
> I also stated mine. Do you still think there is any room for discussion?

No, "RTMCH" was written by somebody who evidently thought that Elm was the
best MUA in the world, and all its flaws and limitations were actually
features.

mutt handles Reply-To far better than elm, and just about every argument
he makes is moot if you don't use elm.

How can there be any room for discussion when your attitude is "do it my
way or I'll take my ball and go home"?

> Call me arrogant, but I won't accept Reply-To munging. There have been

Yes, you are certainly arrogant.

> far too many accidents, pissed users and so on.

I run mailing lists with over a thousand messages a week.  On them, things
that go to the list that aren't meant to happen about once every three or
four months.

> > Again, better than no RFC.  And I see nothing in 2822 that indicates
> > that this suggested usage is either obsolete or against standards.
> 
> Reply-To: is for users, not for machines. RTMCH states this expressis verbis.

So?  Those of us who don't consider RTMCH the word of God don't buy his
bogus arguments.

> been discussed. I stated my point. Once Reply-To: is munged, I'm off.

Yes, very mature of you.

> I will ask the Gnus people to give List-Post some more importance when

Ah, so rather than using a header that's been around since RFC-822 and
works for everybody except people who use elm, you are going to make the
whole rest of the world adopt a new header.


-- 
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin at xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they
start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge