12 Sep
2000
12 Sep
'00
1:30 p.m.
A good read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Makes a lot of points that I agree with :-)
--Chuck
[I apologize in advance for the thirty-eleven messages this may or may not
spawn.]
12 Sep
12 Sep
12:59 p.m.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Chuck McManis wrote:
A good read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Makes a lot of points that I agree with :-)
--Chuck
[I apologize in advance for the thirty-eleven messages this may or may not
spawn.]
And I'll be the first.
I think a link to this essay was posted before, and my comments then are
the same as now.
This essay looks at this issue from the author's own self-serving and
narrow-minded concerns. He bases his argument on nothing more than his
own (unsubstantiated) opinions and preferences.
You can take the same essay, change a few prepositions around, and come up
with the exact opposite argument quite easily.
Fooey. The author should be beat with a LART, and Chuck, you should be
smacked for bringing this up again :)
Sellam International Man of Intrigue and Danger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a six in a pile of nines...
VCF 4.0 is September 30-October 1
San Jose Convention Center, San Jose, California
See http://www.vintage.org for details!
2:56 p.m.
You can take the same essay, change a few prepositions
around, and come up
with the exact opposite argument quite easily.
Yes. Obviously the correct approach is to munge both the From and Reply-To
headers so that unless the (l)user replying to a message edits his headers,
the message will bounce! Then we wouldn't get private messages to the list,
or public messages sent privately. Everyone wins! :-)
13 Sep
13 Sep
6:50 a.m.
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Chuck McManis wrote:
In Eudora 4.3, when I hit reply, I get:
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
and when I hit Reply to All, I get:
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
which I like better, but it's addressed to classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org twice.
- John
A good read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Makes a lot of points that I agree with :-)
Fooey. The author should be beat with a LART, and Chuck, you should be
smacked for bringing this up again :) 
1:08 p.m.
At 10:50 AM 9/13/00 -0500, you wrote:
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
I have Eudora 3.0.1 and it does the same thing. I wonder why?
Joe
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Chuck McManis wrote:
In Eudora 4.3, when I hit reply, I get:
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
and when I hit Reply to All, I get:
At 02:59 PM 9/12/00 -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
which I like better, but it's addressed to classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org twice.
- John
A good read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Makes a lot of points that I agree with :-)
Fooey. The author should be beat with a LART, and Chuck, you should be
smacked for bringing this up again :) 
12 Sep
12 Sep
1:57 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chuck McManis once stated:
A good read:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Makes a lot of points that I agree with :-)
--Chuck
Wheren't you here this past February when we hashed all this out? Simon
Hill has another point of view:
http://www.metasystema.org/reply-to-useful.mhtml and even I make comment on
this at http://linus.slab.conman.org/~spc/replyto.html
I disagree with Chip and agree with Simon. But in any case, read
RFC-822---it actually allows Reply-To: munging.
-spc (And on my page, the list in question is this very list 8-P
8719
days inactive
8720
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
rigdonj＠intellistar.net -
spc＠armigeron.com