Re: Open voting?
On 2009-11-27 14:25:33 -0500, Lee Winter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html
>
> You are misinterpreting the standard. There are two ways to use
> Reply-To. The standard only addresses (prohibits) one such usage.
> The topic of the referenced standard is not Reply-To. It is Reply-To
> _munging_. Thus it prohibits changing the value of an existing
> Reply-To field. The other topic is the issue of _adding_ a Reply-To
> field to message that has with no such setting.
Adding a Reply-To could be regarded as "From" munging, because once
Reply-To has been added, the "From" address should not be used.
Moreover RFC 2822 says:
When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the mailbox(es)
to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The mailing-list software is certainly not the author of my messages,
and as the author of the messages I send to the list, I don't want
the mailing-list software to add a Reply-To header to these messages.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)