Re: Lyris

[Chip Rosenthal <chip @ unicom . com>]

Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
> [regarding rewriting To: header with list recipient name]
> Unfortunately, this is a gratuitous rewriting of the original
> poster's message.  If I address mail to foo@somewhere.com, I
> expect messages to arrive at the user saying that.  If you wish
> to do address detection, put it in a user-defined header.

To: munging is much worse than Roger implies.  It's a
complete abomination.

The unstated implication is that Reply-To is munged as well.
I'm jumping to that conclusion because I don't see how message
r)eply works since the To: header has been corrupted.

I'll elide my usual Reply-To munging rant.  Check out
<http://www.unicom.com/FAQ/reply-to-harmful.html> if you
haven't heard it yet.  I will, however, quote the one
passage that says:

This To: munging also breaks neat features like the (as
of yet unreleased) Elm 2.5 mailing list handling.

I agree with Roger.  Adding a unique delivery identifier to list
messages is a clever idea.  Breaking standard headers to get it is
an awful botch.

(I'm not clear from the attributions ... is this MISfeature a part
of Lyris or is it somebody else's invention?)

-- 
Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development * <chip@unicom.com>
URL: http://www.unicom.com/ * 4868D8BE10C86BDE 6017000BA783998E 
Helmet good.  Law bad.