Hallo, Joern Nettingsmeier hat gesagt: // Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: > Frank Barknecht wrote: > >I must have missed this complains, but until now I also missed, that > >the Reply-to is indeed munged. As this is considered bad practice for > >a lot of reasons > > as well as good practice for about the same number of bad ;) > reasons SF considers it bad: http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6693&group_id=1 > >(search google for "reply-to munging harmful") > > search google for "reply-to munging considered useful" :-D This reply also got a good reply here: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/listreplyto.txt > well, personally i like the reply-to, and imho that's exactly what > it's for. we've had this discussion a couple times iirc. but then, > if you want to vote again, be my guest. Well, I wasn't aware that this was discussed here before. Actually I don't think, this has to be discussed at all, as it's one of those topics, where everyone has a solid, unchangable opinion. Thus these are my last words on this topic: personally I'm strictly against munging, the Lion's discussion may have showed one of the reasons, we all don't use Outlook, so we in general have List-reply-to functions in out mail clients, all SF lists don't munge, you cannot carry a thread across alsa-user, and so on. The arguments are probably known without me having to repeat them. So: *If* there is another vote in the future, count me in as anti-munger. If not, well, then not. ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
