Is FoRK the world's most perverse mailing list?

[Chris Olds]

As to the question posed, I'd have to say it's a contender.

As to the _reason_ proposed, I don't think so.  I think the argument is
best put at http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html (full text
posted to the archives, for posterity).

The argument is that any useful MUA will make 'reply to all' as easy as
'reply to sender', and that adding a reply-to loses information (for
example, my login and my preferred email address are different, so I set
the reply-to so people can use the address I prefer).  Furthermore, email
software is as likely to ignore the reply-to than obey it, so people with
broken MUAs aren't that likely to be 'helped' anyway.

Mailman is doing a good job, and I expect that if reply-to munging was the
common order of things, it would be on by default.  It wasn't so long ago
that FoRK was a sendmail alias - things are great now, by comparison!

	/cco

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Andy Armstrong wrote:

> Sorry to delurk with this one which I seem to remember is an old
> chestnut, but why exactly doesn't FoRK set the reply to address
> properly? In fact why doesn't it behave like every other mailing list on
> the planet?