Put the reply-to header back...

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Grant Robinson on Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:24:48 MDT:

> If  anyone was  going to  reply saying  "get rid  of the  reply-to for
> good", it would be Andy. :)

You mentioned  it publically, I  wasn't going  to say anything  about it
(and believe me I did notice), but I couldn't resist once you started...

> That is  why we still  have it,  because a few  people with an  axe to
> grind want to remove the reply-to, and everyone else wants it to stay.

I  think ``everyone  else'' is  a broad  statement. Clearly  this thread
shows that reply-to isn't necessary to keep a thread moving on the list.

> Plus, Hans removed it to attempt to stop the flame war. I was pointing
> out it didn't  stop it, so put it  back the way it was.  So, let's not
> start another flame war centered around the reply-to header.

Ahh, but there's a lesson to learn here,  now that the cat is out of the
bag...  We can  see the  the users  of this  list are  smarter than  the
reply-to. :-)

Andy
--
GnuPG ID 0xA63888C9 (D2DA 68C9 BB2B 26B4 8204  2219 A43E F450 A638 88C9)
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
  9:40pm  up 72 days,  6:18,  2 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.34, 1.42