[ABQ-pm] new mailing list test

[havoc]

Linda L. Julien wrote:
> I'm one of those people who feels very very strongly that mailing lists
> should not modify the Reply-To header that is set by the sender.  I
> believe that the RFCs support this.
> 
> For a well-written explanation of this side of the debate, see
> '"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful' at
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html.  I find the "Principle
> of Least Damage" argument particularly compelling, as I've seen that
> sort of situation entirely too often.

Hmm... I'd never considered it philosophically. In this case, the
"Principle of Least Damage" conflicts with my philosophy of the
"Principle that Group Communications Should Default to Group
Communication." I've been thinking quite a lot about philosophies that
we rarely take time to formally state lately. Fascinating.

> That being said, if the members of the list have an overwhelming desire
> to have it go the other way, I'll back down, though you may catch me on
> the occasional soapbox.

For the record, I do not feel strongly about this. I have procmail:

:0f
* ^Sender: albuquerque-pm-bounces at pm.org
| formail -bfi "Reply-To:Albuquerque Perl Mongers \
<albuquerque-pm at pm.org>"


j
-- 
http://www.RealizationSystems.com/ -- start communicating
http://www.GalacticSlacker.com/ -- read it and weep
http://www.NMPerspective.com/ -- a Southwest Perspective