[Zope] Reply To:

[Bill Anderson]

Curtis Maloney wrote:
> 
> Morning...
> 
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > Curtis Maloney wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it at all possible to have this list set reply to?
> > >
> > > since problems discussed and solved here are logged for others to search,
> > > surely it would be best if, by default, replies to these messages came to the
> > > list?  I know it's just a little thing, but it still bugs me.
> > >
> > > I know that on other lists to which I subscribe this is done.
> > >
> > > Anyone else have an opinion on this?
> >
> > Can-of-Worms alert!
> >
> 
> Isn't this what open forums are best at? (o8
> 
> > This is something that has been discussed at length on many forums.
> > Munging like this is not only counter to the stamdards, it is also a Bad
> > Idea (tm) on many levels.
> >
> 
> Erm... since when is the reply to field of an e-mail header NOT standard?

A reply-to field itself is not against standards, the requested _use_ 
of the reply-to field is. Slight difference ;)

[The applicable standard is RFC822.]
(of course, technically speaking, the modified subject line in this very
post is in violation of the standard, but since it doesn't tend to cause
nasty mail loops, it largely goes unnoticed :) )

> Why is it a bad idea?  It means the default action of replying to a message on
> this list is to contribute to the list.

Right. Now what happens when Joe User takes a trip, and sets his 'I am
on vacation.' autoresponder on? That response is sent to everyone. That
response generates another email to him ... continue ad nauseum. Or
consider the target email being no-longer-valid. You get a mailer-daemon
response telling everyone on the list about it; which includes the
target thus generating an error which....

Granted,  when all parts of the peices of the puzzle are coded properly,
that may be reduced in frequency and/or intensity, but unfortunately,
many, many manchines are not set up properly, and software isn't coded
correctly.

> 
> I'm not saying you are wrong.  I just would prefer a clear explanation instead
> of an outright "that is wrong."

See my other response. On top of those, I would add the issues with mail
<-> news gateways and loops that can/do occur as a result of improper
header munging.
 


-- 
In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are 
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks. 
          -- Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900