On 7/31/07, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dang it, I apologize to the list, I forgot this list DOES reply to the list > when I hit reply, and nto reply to all. > > Seablade I must admit this is a issue I wanted to raise for a while now... For those of you who haven't heard, there has been a very long debate on whether replyto munging was or wasn't a god practice. Each side had a reference paper stating a number of pros and cons : - http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html - http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html The fight between Simon Hill and Chip Rosenthal finaly ended in 2001 when a new RFC obsoleting RFC 822 appeared, RFC2822. Here's a paper from Neale Pickett stating the final story : http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful I strongly consider turning munging off on LAD and LAU. I know this might start some flames, but isn't it good free software philosophy to stick to the standards, especially when it comes to a recently reviewed RFC ? If someone can give me an argument that is not present in the 3 previously linked documents stating why we need to munge our headers, I'll turn munging off next week. Regards, __________________ Marc-Olivier Barre. Your favorite list administrator :-) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
