neale/homepage
neale
/
homepage
1
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Actions Activity

Mirror reply-to papers

This commit is contained in:
Neale Pickett 2020-06-03 11:15:09 -06:00
parent 412d209395
commit 9cabccba2e
3 changed files with 600 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
papers/reply-to-still-harmful.md
View File

@ -161,8 +161,10 @@ References
* ['Reply-To' Munging Considered * ['Reply-To' Munging Considered
Harmful](http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html) Harmful](http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html)
[mirror](reply-to/harmful.html)
* [Reply-To Munging Considered * [Reply-To Munging Considered
Useful](http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml) Useful](http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml)
[mirror](reply-to/useful.html)
* [RFC 822](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt): _STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT * [RFC 822](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt): _STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT
OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES_ OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES_
* [RFC 2822](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt): _Internet Message * [RFC 2822](http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt): _Internet Message

326
papers/reply-to/harmful.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<!-- $Id: reply-to-harmful.html,v 1.20 2002/11/15 03:46:04 chip Exp $ -->
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#5500EE" ALINK="#FF0000" VLINK="#551A8B">
<h1>This Page is a Mirror</h1>
<p>This page has been mirrored for historical preservation</p>
<hr>
<H1>"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful</H1>
<H2>An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators</H2>
<HR>
<P>An email message requires some amount of processing when it is
redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must
be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator.
While the message is being processed, the list administrator might
take advantage of the opportunity to
<A HREF="http://www.fwi.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/m/munge.html">munge</A> some
of the message headers.
<P>Some forms of header munging are helpful, such as special loop-detection
headers. Others are questionable. Most are ill-advised or dangerous.
Many list adminstrators want to add a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header that
points back to the list. This transformation also is one of the most
ill-advised.
<P>Some administrators claim that <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging makes
it easier for users to respond to the entire list, and helps encourage
list traffic. These benefits are fallacious. Moreover, <KBD>Reply-To</KBD>
can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. If you think
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is a good idea, I hope I can change your
mind.
<H2>The Principle of Minimal Munging</H2>
<P>Email processing is pretty tricky. Read through
<A HREF="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc822.txt">RFC-822</A>, the
<CITE>Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages</CITE>,
sometime. It is 47 pages of dense, dry detail. A lot of engineering
and consideration went into this work. Even still, RFC-822 leaves
many corner conditions and specialized circumstances poorly specified.
<A HREF="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1123.txt">RFC-1123</A>, the
commonly-called <CITE>Internet Host Requirements</CITE> document, adds
a couple dozen more pages, and remedies some of the defects. Then
there is MIME, X.400 mapping, and a handful of other standards and
conventions -- some documented and some folklore. Email handling is
surprisingly complicated, and even an innocuous-sounding change might
have grave, unintended consequences.<P>
<P>The "Principle of Minimal Munging" is a good rule that will keep
you out of trouble. It says you should <EM>not</EM> make any changes
to an email header unless you know precisely what you want to do,
why you want to do it, and what it will affect. Unless you can
articulate a clear reason for munging and understand the full consequences
of the action, you should not do it.
<P>The "Principle of Minimal Munging" will help you avoid the sorts of
problems we are about to discuss. This principle <EM>is</EM> a rule
designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache
by thinking hard and long before you do so.
<H2>It Adds Nothing</H2>
<P><KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging does not benefit the user with a reasonable
mailer. People want to munge <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers to make
"reply back to the list" easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable
mail programs have two separate "reply" commands: one that replies
directly to the author of a message, and another that replies to the
author plus all of the list recipients. Even the lowly
<A HREF="http://www.bsdi.com/bsdi-man/?Mail%281%29">Berkeley
<CITE>Mail</CITE></A> command has had this for about a decade.
<P>Any reasonable, modern mailer provides this feature. I prefer the
<A HREF="http://www.myxa.com/myxa/elm.html"><CITE>Elm</CITE> mailer</A>.
It has separate "r)eply" and "g)roup-reply" commands. If I
want to reply to the author of a message, I strike the "<KBD>r</KBD>"
key. If I want to send a reply to the entire list, I hit "<KBD>g</KBD>"
instead. Piece 'o cake.
<P>I mention <CITE>Elm</CITE> here (and a lot later on) simply because
that's the mailer I use everyday. This sort of support is not unique
to <CITE>Elm</CITE> Any reasonable mailer provides it. The
<CITE>Pine</CITE> mailer, for instance, asks directly, "Reply to all
recipients?" when you use the "<KBD>r</KBD>" command. It doesn't
get much easier than that!
<P>Whichever mailer you choose, please <EM>read</EM> the fine manual
that comes with it. Unless you are stuck with some decrepit mail
system, I bet you'll find it has a similar feature. If so, you easily
can choose to direct your responses either to the original author or
the entire list. Mauling the mail headers doesn't make it any easier.
<H2>It Makes Things Break</H2>
<P>If you use a reasonable mailer, <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging does not
provide any new functionality. It, in fact, <EM>decreases</EM>
functionality. <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging destroys the "reply-to-author"
capability. Munging makes this command act effectively the same as
the "reply-to-group" function. We haven't added anything new, we've
only taken away. <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is not merely benign,
it is harmful. It renders a useful mail capability inoperative.
<H2>Freedom of Choice</H2>
<P>Some administrators justify <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging by saying,
"All responses should go directly to the list anyway." This is
arrogant. You should allow <EM>me</EM> to decide exactly how I wish
to respond to a message. If I feel a public response is justified,
I'll hit the "<KBD>g</KBD>" key and tell <CITE>Elm</CITE> to do a
group-reply. If I believe a private response is more appropriate,
I'll use "<KBD>r</KBD>" to send one. Please allow me the freedom
to decide how to handle a message.
<H2>Can't Find My Way Back Home</H2>
<P>It may be impossible to reply to the author of a message once the
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header is munged. The <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header
was not invented on a whim. It is there for the sender of a mail
message to use. If you stomp on this header, you can lose important
information.
<P>There are good reasons why the sender might insert a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD>
header. The sender might <EM>not</EM> be the original author of the
message (the name that appears in the <KBD>From</KBD> header). If
responses should return to the sender and not the original author,
then the sender will insert a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header. Or, maybe
the sender added a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> because he or she cannot receive
email at the account from which the message was sent. There are many
good reasons to place a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header into a mailing list
message.
<P>If the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> is munged by the mailing list, the value
provided by the original sender is lost. <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging
can make it impossible to reach the sender of a message.
<H2>Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious</H2>
<P>There are, unfortunately, poorly implemented mail programs that lack
separate reply-to-author and reply-to-group functions. A user saddled
with such a brain-dead mailer can benefit from <KBD>Reply-To</KBD>
munging. It makes it easier for him or her to send responses directly
to the list.
<P>This change, however, penalizes the conscientious person that uses
a reasonable mailer. This is a poor trade-off. As Internet list
administrators, we should encourage people to run reasonable software.
If a few people need to type in a full reply address so that everybody
else can use all the features of their mailer, I say, "Fine!" We
should not penalize the conscientious to coddle those who run brain-dead
software.
<H2>Principle of Least Work</H2>
<P>Compare and contrast: the work required for me (or any other
<CITE>Elm</CITE> user) to reply on lists that do and don't employ
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>
Case One: Case Two:
Action Without Munging With Munging
============= ===================== =====================
Reply to Hit the "g" Probably hit the "r"
everybody. key. key, but maybe the "g"
key if there were other
recipients of the message.
Reply just Hit the "r" Look at the original
to author. key. message header, write
down the sender's
email address, hit the
"r" key, call up the
header editing menu,
erase the current To:
value, and type in the
sender's full email
address. And pray the
correct address wasn't
wiped out when the Reply-To
was munged.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Again, your preferred mailer probably implements this feature in
a different fashion. Nonetheless, it should be easy. I'll take box
number one, Monte.
<H2>Principle of Least Surprise</H2>
<P>When I hit the "<KBD>r</KBD>" key in <CITE>Elm</CITE>, it sends a
response to the author of a message. When you munge the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD>
header you change this action so that it does something entirely
different from what I expect. This creates specialized behavior for
your mailing list, which increases the potential for surprise. I'm
not schooled in the science of human factors, but I suspect surprise
is not an element of a robust user interface.
<P>Private messages frequently are broadcast across lists that do
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging. That's an empirical fact. It's what
happens when you violate the principle of least surprise.
<H2>Principle of Least Damage</H2>
<P>Consider the damage when things go awry. If you do not munge the
<CITE>Reply-To</CITE> header and a list subscriber accidentally sends a
response via private email instead of to the list, he or she has to
follow up with a message that says, "Ooops! I meant to send that to
the list. Could you please forward a copy for me." That's a hassle,
and it happens from time to time.
<P>What happens, however, when a person mistakenly broadcasts a private
message to the entire list? If the message is a complaint about the
personal hygiene of sender's boss, or the sex life of his or her
roommate, a simple "Ooops!" won't cut it. About all you can do is
send a followup with lots of retroactive smileys (weak). Or say your
cat was dancing on the keyboard (better). Or start reading the
classifieds for a new job/roommate/set of teeth (most likely).
<P><KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging encourages catastrophic failure modes.
Sure, you don't need <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging to create this sort
of damage. A simple slip of the fingers will suffice. When, however,
you violate the "Principle of Least Surprise" you invite this sort
of disaster. A responsible list administrator will avoid creating
avenues that lead to such extreme damage.
<H2>And in the End...</H2>
<P>If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. I contribute
to the <CITE>Elm</CITE> mailer development team. I get to see a lot
of the wants and requests from the user community. Guess what feature
more and more people are asking for? A <EM>third</EM> reply command
-- one that ignores any existing <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header! Want to
guess why people are asking for it? If you think you are doing your
subscribers a service by munging <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers, you are
kidding yourself. You are making your subscribers miserable.
<P>Some list administrators, even after reading all this, seem to say,
"Oh, it's not that bad. Besides, my subscribers like it!" If they
do, it's probably because they haven't bothered to learn to use the
"reply-to-group" feature of their mailer. Instead of going through
all the trouble of making your list gateway scribble on email headers,
how about making an effort to educate your subscribers?
<H2>Summary</H2>
<P>Many people want to munge <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers. They believe
it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic.
It really does neither, and is a very poor idea. <KBD>Reply-To</KBD>
munging suffers from the following problems:
<UL>
<LI>It violates the principle of minimal munging.
<LI>It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.
<LI>It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will direct
a response.
<LI>It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
<LI>It removes important information, which can make it impossible to
get back to the message sender.
<LI>It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle
those running brain-dead software.
<LI>It violates the principle of least work because complicates the
procedure for replying to messages.
<LI>It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the
way a mailer works.
<LI>It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a failure
mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse.
<LI>Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who
have bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want
you to do it.
</UL>
<H2>Addendum</H2>
<P>In case you are wondering, yes, I once thought <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging
was a nifty idea. I got better though.
<P>When I started running email lists, I munged 'em all. One day I
accidentally sent a private, personal reply out over one of my own
damn lists. If the list owner can't remember how to use the list
properly, no way will the subscribers be able to sort it out. I
stopped munging the very next day.
<P>On the whole, it has worked out quite well. Yes, on occasion
somebody mistakenly responds directly to the author of a message when
they wanted to reply to the group. Most folks, however, seem to catch
on pretty fast to how it works, and seem to appreciate the flexibility.
Moreover, private responses mistakenly sent to the entire list have
become an almost unheard-of event.
<P>
<HR>
<ADDRESS>
<A HREF="../people/chip/index.html">Chip Rosenthal</A><BR>
&lt;chip@unicom.com&gt;<BR>
</ADDRESS>
<P>
<IMG SRC="../graphics/small-back.gif" ALIGN="top" ALT="" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="16">
<A HREF="index.html">Back</A> to the <CITE>Paperware Archive</CITE>.
<BR>
<IMG SRC="../graphics/small-up.gif" ALIGN="top" ALT="" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="16">
<A HREF="../people/chip/index.html">Up</A> to Unicom Systems home page.
<BR>
<IMG SRC="../graphics/small-comment.gif" ALIGN="top" ALT="" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="16">
<A HREF="/misc/cmntform.html">Let us know</A>
your comments, corrections, additions, suggestions.
<P><PRE>$Id: reply-to-harmful.html,v 1.20 2002/11/15 03:46:04 chip Exp $</PRE>
</PRE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

272
papers/reply-to/useful.html Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>MetaSystema.Net: Reply-To Munging Considered Useful</title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#336666" alink="#336600" vlink="#003333" text="#000000">
<h1>This Page is a Mirror</h1>
<p>This page has been mirrored for historical preservation</p>
<hr>
<H2 ALIGN=CENTER>Reply-To Munging Considered Useful</H2>
<H3 ALIGN=CENTER>An Earnest Plea to Mailing List Administrators</H3>
<H4 ALIGN=CENTER>Last revised: 3 January 2000</H4>
<HR>
<P>An email message requires some amount of processing when it is
redistributed to a mailing list. At the very least, the envelope must
be rewritten to redirect bounces directly to the list administrator.
<P>While the message is being processed, the list administrator might
take advantage of the opportunity to
<A HREF="http://www.fwi.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/m/munge.html">munge</A> some
of the message headers. Many list administrators want to add a
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header that points back to the list. This transformation
is also one of the most useful.
<P>Some administrators claim that <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging
can have harmful -- even dangerous -- effects. I assert the opposite,
that <EM>not</EM> adding a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header has even more
harmful effects. If you think
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is a <EM>bad</EM> idea, I hope I can change your
mind.
<H3>RFC 822 and "Text Message Teleconferencing"</H3>
<P>The first thing to consider is that
<a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html">RFC 822</a>, the document which
defines the standards and usages for email, specifically mentions this usage in
section 4.4.3:
<pre>
A somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message
teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution
services: include the address of that service in the "Reply-To"
field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; then
participants can "reply" to conference submissions to guarantee
the correct distribution of any submission of their own.
</pre>
<P>Aside from this official sanction, there are a number of reasons for munging
the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header. The arguments which follow are my own.
They may not be comprehensive, but I think they are compelling.
<H3>The Principle of Minimal Bandwidth</H3>
<P>The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' is a good rule that will keep
you out of trouble. It says that you <EM>should</EM> make any changes
which will reduce the amount of email traffic on the Internet.
The ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'' will help you avoid the sorts of
problems we are about to discuss. This principle <EM>is</EM> a rule
designed to be broken, but you can avoid some significant heartache
by thinking hard and long before you do so.
<H3>Reply-To Munging Adds Something</H3>
<P><KDB>Reply-To</KDB> gives the respondant an option which would not
otherwise exist: namely the ability to <EM>reply only to the list</EM>.
Despite the fact that many (though not all) email clients have the
ability to "reply to sender" or "reply to all recipients", many list
subscribers want to <EM>reply only to the list</EM>, which is not the
result of selecting either of these options. So, to ensure that the
reply goes to the list, they select "reply to all recipients", which
generally results in the sending of <EM>at least two</EM> email messages, one
to the list, and one to the original sender.
<P>This is frequently quite annoying to the original sender, who now
receives two copies of the reply. Furthermore, in many cases the original
sender has added additional recipients. Not only does "reply to all
recipients" send the reply to each of these additional recipients
(who are frequently also members of the list), it also propagates this
list of recipients onto the reply to the list.
<P>The effects of this snowball, as each additional person replies to the
messages using "reply to all recipients", they become the sender, and thus
get added to the list of recipients with the next reply. Thus the list of
recipients grows and grows. Frequently, as the subject matter changes,
members of the list find themselves receiving multiple copies of messages
which have strayed from the topic in which they were originally interested,
<i>even after they have unsubscribed from the list</i>.
<P>Many people have pointed out that it is relatively easy to implement a
<KBD>procmail</KBD> filter to remove duplicates. This attitude merely reveals
a Unix-centric and US-centric viewpoint. Many users of inferior operating
systems <i>do not</i> have a tool powerful enough to ensure the removal of
duplicate messages. Furthermore, in many European countries, connect time is
charged by the <i>minute</i>. Even with <KBD>procmail</KBD>, the duplicates
have to be <i>downloaded</i> before they can be filtered, resulting in
unnecessary additional expenses for some of our European list mates.
<P>This last fact reveals that the issue is really related to bandwidth.
By applying the ``Principle of Minimal Bandwidth'', we conclude that it
is necessary to add a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header that points back to the list.
<H3>It Doesn't Break Reasonable Mailers</H3>
<P>If you use a reasonable mailer, <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging <EM>does</EM>
provide new functionality, namely the ability to <EM>reply only to the
list</EM>. Furthermore, it does <EM>not decrease</EM> functionality. In Pine,
for example, when there is a <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header, Pine will ask,
``Use "Reply-To:" address instead of "From:" address?'', easily allowing
one to reply only to the original author. In KMail, it is even easier. One
merely right-clicks on the hyperlinked <KBD>From</KBD> address.
<P>If your mailer doesn't have this option, you should request it from its
development team. Any mailer, whose development team refuses this simple
request due to some ideological position, cannot be said to be reasonable.
<H3>Freedom of Choice</H3>
<P>Since <KDB>Reply-To</KDB> munging adds additional functionality, it actually
<EM>increases</EM> freedom of choice. Not only can you now <EM>reply only to
the list</EM>, you still have the option to reply to the original
author, or to all recipients, easily and conveniently.
<H3>Some Mailers are Broken</H3>
<P>There are, unfortunately, some poorly implemented mail programs that lack
separate "reply-to-author" and "reply-to-group" functions. A user saddled
with such a mailer can benefit from <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging. It makes
it easier for him or her to send responses directly to the list.
<P>Furthermore, this change <EM>does not</EM> penalize the conscientious
person that uses a reasonable mailer. Reasonable mailers give one the
ability to reply to the <KBD>From</KBD> address. Therefore, it would be
unkind to further penalize those with poorly implemented mail programs, since
munging the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header causes no harm to those with reasonable
mailers.
<H3>Principle of Least Total Work</H3>
<P>For discussion type lists, I would estimate that ninety percent of the time,
people want to reply to the list. Without munging, they either have to break
the ``Principle of Least Bandwidth'', or type in the list address. Many people,
being lazy, will choose the former, sending unnecessary copies of emails to
people who will either have to delete them, or take the time to set up a
filter (if they are lucky enough to be running an operating system which
facilitates this).
<P>On the other hand, about ten percent of the time, replying to the sender
might be more appropriate. Even if the respondant has an unreasonable
mailer (a decision for which they are probably responsible), the worst case
scenario is that they have to type in an address ten percent of the time.
Of course, if they took the time to add this recipient to their address book,
they could reduce the amount of typing to a minimum.
<P>So, which produces least total work: typing in the list address ninety
percent of the time (plus possibly taking the time to set up a filter), or
typing in an individual's address ten percent of the time?
<P>I'll take munged <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers every time, thanks.
<H3>People are Responsible for Their Own Mistakes</H3>
<P>Some administrators claim that munging <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers is
harmful because it surprises people, and can cause damage when things go
awry. They assert that administrators should prevent the possibility of a
private message being mistakenly broadcast to the entire list.
<P>This is simply not the responsibility of the administrator. People are
responsible for their own mistakes. If someone is sending a private email
which is derogatory, or otherwise embarrassing were it to be made public,
they should probably be sending it directly, rather than as a reply to a
public message. They should also pause and think about whether they should
be sending it at all. This pause should be quite sufficient for a
conscientious person using a reasonable mailer to catch any mistake that
they might be about to make.
<P>In any case, it is an entirely trivial matter for the list administrator
to provide an obvious clue in the subject line of every message that the
message was received from a mailing list. If your Mailing List Manager doesn't
provide an option to prepend "[listname]" to the subject, then switch to one
that does (&nbsp;e.g. <a href="http://www.list.org/">GNU&nbsp;MailMan</a>
or <a href="http://www.greatcircle.com/majordomo/">Majordomo</a>&nbsp;).
<H3>And in the End...</H3>
<P>If you are not convinced yet, then allow me one final plea. Most mailing
lists are intended to facilitate discussion on a given topic. If this is
indeed the primary purpose of your list, then you <EM>really should</EM> add a
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header which directs replies to the list. This helps to
ensure that the entire thread of the conversation is available to all who
might be interested.
<P>I can't count the number of times I have searched the archives
of a list for a solution to a problem, only to find the question asked, but
no solution. Yet, when I subsequently post the question to the list, the
long-time members insist that it has already been discussed, and that I should
search the archives. If I'm lucky, a newer member forwards to me the private
reply which answered the question.
<P>Thus, munging the <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> header benefits those lists which are
intended for serious discussion. If your list is intended primarily for
announcements or other one-way mailings, you may safely ignore these arguments.
<H3>It's What People Want</H3>
<P>I have been and am subscribed to both munging and non-munging mailing lists.
On the non-munging lists, there are regular requests to change the list so
that <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> replies to the list. On the munging lists which
already do this, there are hardly any requests for change.
<H3>Summary</H3>
<P>Many people want to munge <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> headers. They believe
it makes reply-to-list easier, and it encourages more list traffic.
It really does both of these things, and is a very good idea. To reiterate:
<UL>
<LI>It adheres to the principle of minimal bandwidth.
<LI>It provides additional functionality to the user.
<LI>It increases a subscriber's freedom to choose how to direct a response.
<LI>It does not reduce functionality for the user of a reasonable mailer.
<LI>It aids and assists the user with a deficient mailer.
<LI>It adheres to the principle of least total work.
<LI>It helps to ensure that questions are answered on the list.
<LI>Your subscribers want you to do it.
</UL>
<P>&nbsp;
<H3>Addendum</H3>
<P>There are, of course, a few details that need to be addressed to make
<KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging more pleasant and productive for everyone. One
potentially serious problem with <KBD>Reply-To</KBD> munging is the possibility
of mail loops. It should be possible for the list server to detect and prevent
this. If anyone has any patches to implement this feature, I would be happy
to provide a link to the patch on your ftp server, or to make it available on
my own ftp server.
<P>Also, patches are needed for any mailers that do not implement the ability
to reply to the <KBD>From</KBD> address. Please send links or patches to me
at <i>sdhill&nbsp;at&nbsp;metasystema.net</i>. Thanks.
<H3>Patches</H3>
<P>
A patch for Emacs rmail is available at: <a href="http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el">http://www.metasystema.net/pub/patches/emacs/rmail-query-reply-to.el</a>.
<H3>Dissenting Opinion</H3>
<P>I originally wrote this essay as a response to Chip Rosenthal's
<a href="harmful.html">
Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful</a>.
<p>
<address>Simon Hill</address>
<address>sdhill&nbsp;at&nbsp;metasystema.net</address>
</body>
</html>