Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D3465013E for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:43:48 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50031-10 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:43:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3787164FCEF for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:43:42 -0300 (ADT) Received: from commandprompt.com (CPE001b63afe888-CM001adea9c5a6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.236.211.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9HDlbP2003254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:47:41 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:43:35 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To Message-ID: <20081017134335.GD7198@commandprompt.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan , pgsql-general@postgresql.org References: <48F85CED.7000009@batory.org.pl> <6D3E0C6E-B2F4-4BAF-92E0-46C4EAE4D51B@hoegh.org> <48F867EE.5040403@batory.org.pl> <20081017072017.1039f895.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <74826FB8-0529-486A-A6A5-4C6DE161D3C9@hoegh.org> <20081017080103.ba3ca072.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <20081017084917.f6840c44.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:47:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/753 X-Sequence-Number: 139002 On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:27:46AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Mikkel is right, every other well-organized mailing list I've ever been on > handles things the sensible way he suggests, but everybody on his side They may be well-organized, but they're doing bad things to the mail headers. RFC 5322 (which just obsoleted 2822) says this: When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests that replies be sent. The mailing list is not the author of the message. Therefore it should not alter that header. Moreover, since you are allowed at most one Reply-To header, if the original author needs individual responses to go to some other address, then that Reply-To: header will be lost if the list munges them. There is therefore a mail standards reason not to munge the headers, and it rests in the rules about origin fields and in the potential for lost functionality. Given the project's goal of SQL conformance, why would we blow off SMTP standards? (Anyway, I agree with Tom, so I'm saying nothing more in this thread.) A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/