Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508171512.LAA29261@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date:        Thu, 17 Aug 1995 16:58:34 +0200
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE>
Subject:     Re: "Reply-To"
To: Jim Conklin <conklin@info.cren.net>, Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>, ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:43:52 -0400 from moore@CS.UTK.EDU

On Thu, 17 Aug 1995 01:43:52 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU> said:

>However,  lists should  have  a  "good reason"  for  mucking with  these
>headers (and thus obscuring the  Sender's identity or intent), and there
>should  perhaps be  some advice  that a  list which  mungs such  headers
>should indicate that it has so.

I can  guarantee that anything this  group might state along  these lines
will be completely ignored, except for a noticeable increase in the level
of flaming between a vocal minority  of techies and the developers of the
major mailing list packages.

>Most users  don't have  the depth  of expertise required  to know  why a
>particular design decision makes sense.

Most users find this kind of statement insulting when the design decision
results in a loss of functionality. While users may not understand design
decisions, they  do understand  gratuitous removal of  functionality that
has  been around  for  years  and works  fine.  Mailing  lists have  been
"mucking" with headers on a large  scale since at least 1986. They aren't
going to stop doing that unless a clearly superior method of dealing with
the issues  specific to  mailing lists is  brought about.  Simply stating
that header  "mucking" is Not Needed  Without A Darn Good  Reason doesn't
provide  any   such  superior  alternative.  In   correct  English,  this
discussion is a complete waste of time.

  Eric