Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C9165013E for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:15:56 -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 41404-06 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:15:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from westnet.com (westnet.com [216.187.52.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F21B64FC71 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:15:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from westnet.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9HIFqdZ026499 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (gsmith@localhost) by westnet.com (8.14.0/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m9HIFqL6026496 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:15:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: westnet.com: gsmith owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:15:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg Smith X-X-Sender: gsmith@westnet.com To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Annoying Reply-To In-Reply-To: <20081017134335.GD7198@commandprompt.com> Message-ID: 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> <20081017134335.GD7198@commandprompt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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: 200810/794 X-Sequence-Number: 139043 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