-----Original Message----- From: Alexander Staubo [mailto:alex@mop.no] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 11:15 AM To: Zope Mailing List (E-mail) Subject: RE: [Zope] Split the list again?

I never figured this on out. There's nothing harmful about Reply-To.

Because you don't see it doesn't mean it's wrong!-) In brief, reply-to is not intended for the mailing list to grab replies. Munging of it breaks that intended purpose. The actual purpose is to enable senders to specify an alternative address, other than the one from which they're sending the message, as the destination for replies. This is very simple, and very useful for people who send mail from multiple places and want to be assured that they'l get the replies in one place. It's also used to specify different response addresses depending on what's being sent. In any case, it's a tool for the original sender, not the intermediate mailing list. Having the mailing list system stomp the reply-to for its own purpose loses that essential information. This is "evil", in programming parlance. Having the mailing list system try to compensate by, eg, altering the 'from' address to preserve the reply-to info loses the from info, and compounds the sin. This is the path to irredeemable corruption - known in some circles as excessive bureacracy:-) There are other reasons for not munging the reply-to - i think the cited article goes into them, i don't recall exactly which. It's sufficient to say that (1) the fact that you don't understand the "reply-to munging considered harmful" rationale is not adequate reason to dismiss the rationale, and (2) the controversy alone, plus the above specific reason - plus (3, 4, 5...) reply-to's actual intended purpose, plus the principle that minimal intervention is desirable, (particularly when it comes to email!) is enough to convince us to think twice before changing it back. Wouldn't that be enough for you? In another message on the subject, Phillip Beazley wrote:

...

reply-to list also leads to a higher incidence of mail loops, stupid vacation messages, and other rubbish, being sent to the list.

If that's the case, the list administrator needs to get a better list server.

I won't take offense, though i'm one of the developers of the list server in question (mailman, which has its pluses and its minuses). I do think it's presumptuous - particularly in light of the litany of reasons above - to dismiss the cited article, and opinions of many savvy email folk. There are good reasons for the decision - and we're not planning to change it. Ken Manheimer klm@digicool.com