pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:15:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081017134335.GD7198@commandprompt.com>
References: <48F85CED.7000009@batory.org.pl>
	<6D3E0C6E-B2F4-4BAF-92E0-46C4EAE4D51B@hoegh.org>
	<48F867EE.5040403@batory.org.pl>
	<D22F5E21-BACF-4466-8AC0-9E57E73809C6@hoegh.org>
	<20081017072017.1039f895.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<74826FB8-0529-486A-A6A5-4C6DE161D3C9@hoegh.org>
	<20081017080103.ba3ca072.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<F8DC8AE3-B575-4E36-A39D-6813B0E05DF4@hoegh.org>
	<20081017084917.f6840c44.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0810170912470.1998@westnet.com>
	<20081017134335.GD7198@commandprompt.com>

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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.

I should have included the standard links to both sides of this 
discussion:

http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml

I find the "Principle of Minimal Bandwidth" and "Principle of Least Total 
Work" arguments in the latter match my personal preferences here better 
(particularly as someone who only cares about on-list replies even more 
than the 90% of the time given in that example), while respecting that 
true RFC-compliance is also a reasonable perspective.

It's also clear to me you'll never change the mind of anyone who had 
adopted a firm stance on either side here.  My spirit for e-mail pedantry 
arguments was broken recently anyway, when I had someone I'm compelled to 
communicate with regularly complain that they couldn't follow my 
top-posted messages and requested me to reply "like everybody else" to 
their mail in the future.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD



view thread (57+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com>
Permalink:  ../Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: gsmith@gregsmith.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To
  In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox