Re: reply-to header

["John Abreau-2" <user=184@nabble.blu.org>]

 This argument pops up every couple of years. The consensus 
we reached in the past was that there were valid arguments 
for both positions, and neither choice was clearly better. 

People's preferences were evenly divided, so voting on it 
would just guarantee that the setting would randomly change 
each time the flamewar flared up. 

I decided that having the reply-to setting change randomly was 
far worse than arbitrarily choosing a side, and I decided to 
go with no reply-to header. 

I consider the issue settled, so there's no point in rehashing 
the tired old arguments. 


Matthew Gillen wrote: 
> Brendan Kidwell wrote: 
>   
>> (META: If I understand correctly, I accidentally just sent this reply to 
>> only Brendan. Sorry about that. The list's messages don't seem to have a 
>> proper reply-to header.) 
>>     
> 
> That's a flame-war waiting to happen... Some people, (especially mutt users), 
> would actually say that the list is configured correctly, and if you want to 
> reply to the list, you should use the "Reply-to-list" option of your mail client. 
> 
> There's been copious discussion about this in the past (since certain popular 
> mail clients like Thunderbird have no such option), and I don't really want to 
> get into it again, I just wanted to head off another round of it. 
> 
> Matt 
> 
>