Re: Annoying Reply-To
От | Greg Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Annoying Reply-To |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.64.0810171205150.18814@westnet.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Annoying Reply-To (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
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
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: