[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] Messages received twice



--------------------------------------------------
From: <xavier.joubert@free.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:22 AM
To: "Miro Kropacek" <miro.kropacek@gmail.com>
Cc: <mint@lists.fishpool.fi>; "George Nakos" <ggn@hol.gr>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] Messages received twice

----- "Miro Kropacek" <miro.kropacek@gmail.com> a écrit :
Do you have someone an idea why it's so great to have To: <sender> ?
To my naive look there are only disadvantages.
http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.html

Long story made short: the current setup is the right one. It is your MUA responsability to
provide features to handle it right.
"``Reply-To'' Munging Considered Harmful" is written by a bitter geek many 
years ago. Most of the arguments used are no longer valid. Putting the blame 
on the MUA is easy, but not very constructive. Most people doesn't choose 
MUA based on how they handle mailing lists.
"Munging" Reply-To is not harmful, atleast not for this list. On the 
contrary, it makes life easier. One eksample is this mail I'm writing right 
now. Xavier made his reply the kosher way, by replying to all, thus sending 
three copies of his mail to two subscribers of this mailing list. Because I 
want to send my reply to the list only, I have to remove two recipients on 
the To-field, remove one recipient in the Cc-field and move the list address 
to the To-field. With "munged" reply-to this would never be needed. If I did 
like Xavier, this reply would now be sent in FOUR copies to three 
subscribers.
If I had the occasional need to reply to the original sender of the mail, I 
could simply choose "Reply to all" and remove the list adress. I would 
prefer to do this than having to edit the recipient addresses every time I 
want to reply to the list.
Jo Even