Is this an issue of posting etiquette?

[John Kaufmann]

At 12:05 -0500 030204, Shing-Fat Fred Ma wrote:

>  > Wez felt that dropping the "Reply-To:" header would stop those
>>  conspiracies of dumb mail clients and dumb majordomo - and it has at
>>  least done that.  Other lists are able to use "Reply-To:" to maintain
>>  threading without having to yield to dumb autoresponders, but I can't
>>  fault Wez, who already has a full plate, for not researching the
>  > differences.
>
>If that's the only way to get rid of those endless
>autoresponse loops (with the amount of research
>that can be afforded), then perhaps it's a necessary
>evil.  No free lunch.  I guess the list members have
>picked their poison.

Well, in terms of members who posted when it was being considered a 
couple months ago, the vote ran roughly 3-to-1 against the change - 
so this is the poison that list members have not picked.  Of course, 
majority opinion is not always the best barometer on technical 
issues, but IMHO it was in this case.

FWIW, at that time I did not post on the subject.  It seemed wrong to 
make the change, but it also a matter on which I was not sufficiently 
informed to express an opinion.  In the past couple months, we have 
all become better informed - but I'm still not sufficiently informed 
to offer assistance to the listmom, and I have not seen anyone else 
offer such assistance either.  In that sense, I agree with your 
comment: I'm not doing the research, so can hardly complain if no one 
else does.
--
John