From olivia@sonicblond.com Fri Feb 02 14:26:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: olivia@sonicblond.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 2 Feb 2001 22:26:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 36002 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2001 22:18:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Feb 2001 22:18:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 22:18:55 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f12MIrD19586 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:18:53 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Reply, to whom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Olivia > > For why we don't do that, please read "Reply-To Munging > > Considered Harmful" at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html he never really explains exactly why minimal munging is preferable....other than saying that unexpected bad things can happen, for details sift through the RFC.... so i'm wondering, if reply-to header munging can have such horrible consequences, where is the fall-out from all the Yahoo groups who's reply-to property is set to All? this is the only Yahoo group i'm on where it's not set up like that....so i'm assuming most groups use reply-to: All. rawk, olivia -- You hate Christmas music because it's a lie. It neither speaks to nor represents your real, complicated life. So fuck it.