*HCS* Final Call for Ignitaries!
bdconnel at fas.harvard.edu
Mon Oct 2 16:56:35 EDT 2000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Chris Palmer wrote:
> that might not be "a good idea" but it's not "broken". the system is
> performing as it was set up to do.
Of *course* the system is "performing as it was set up to do". That's not
the reason it's broken.
It's "broken", IMHO, because it breaks the "reply-to-user" and
"reply-to-group" functionality of many common mail agents. That is, for
whatever reason (policy or otherwise), it's not functioning as it should.
(Others may disagree, but I think it's pretty clear how the software
"should" function here. The article I posted summarizes the main
arguments.) If the list software intentionally inserted 15 extra "From:"
headers in every message, well, that wouldn't just be bad policy--it would
be "broken" too.
With that said... if it makes more sense to people, I'm happy to call the
Reply-to: munging "incompatible", "illogical", and "a very bad idea". :)
> Besides, hcs-discuss has always been this way.
That's the usual justification for brokenness. ;) (BTW, ever heard
Margo's story about the monkeys that get hosed down with water?)
More information about the hcs-discuss