* * * * *

                   Reply-To Munging: Is it the Right Thing?

There's a major controversy on a mailing list I'm subscribed to. The list in
question (about classic computers) had to change hosts and the software used
to manage the list changed.

The upshot is that under the old software, the Reply-To: field was set to be
the list itself. That meant that if you wanted to send a private reply, you
had to change the address the message was being sent to. As a consequence, a
few private messages were sent to the list by mistake.

The new software does not set the Reply-To: field. So to reply to the list,
you have to ether change the address the message was being sent to, or do a
group reply, which sends a copy to the list as well as to the original
sender.

A subtle change, but one that has thrown the list in a tizzy. Some people
(like me) like the old behavior. Some like the new behavior (and are telling
the ones that like the old behavior to deal or upgrade—odd considering that
most accessing the list are using computers deemed too old to use by the rest
of society).

The new change was justified by the essay “Reply-To” Munging Considered
Harmful [1] by Chip Rosenthal (I think Chip is sore because he accidentally
sent private mail to a public list by mistake). But then Simon Hill, in his
Reply-To Considered Useful [2] notes that RFC-822 [3] allows munging of the
Reply-To: field:

>
>      4.4.3.  REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO
>
>         This field provides a general  mechanism  for  indicating  any
>         mailbox(es)  to which responses are to be sent.  Three typical
>         uses for this feature can  be  distinguished.   In  the  first
>         case,  the  author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail-
>         boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate  machine
>         address.   In  the  second case, an author may wish additional
>         persons to be made aware of, or responsible for,  replies.   **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.**
>
>

(emphasis added). So. There it is.

But that still hasn't settled the list. Sigh.

[1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
[2] http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml
[3] ftp://nis.nsf.net/document/rfc/rfc0822.txt

Email author at [email protected]