On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:55:50 +0100
> From: Ben Laurie <email@example.com>
> To: DCMS List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Pet names, true names, and nicknames
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" wrote:
> > Bugger. This is why I wanted to mung reply-to!
> So why aren't you?
As an email postmaster of over 20 years (Since the Arpanet), let me muddy the waters a bit.
There is a *lot* of broken software in the world... Some some mail clients send errors to the reply address.
This is broken, but can spew to the list if non-subscribers are allowed to post. Some vacation programs send to Reply-to, some to errors-to, some to the original sender.. The ones that send to reply-to spew to the list (Since they come from a subscriber.) But, mercifully, most of them remember to whom they have sent notices and don't continue to send.
That said, I'll make the claim that there are advantages and disadvantages to any choice that Shap makes. In the end he is the one that has to live with any problems one way or the other. I, for one, am not going to tell him which way he should make the choice.