Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the dangers of no reply-to munging; Xouvert update

[Miles Bader]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:56:13AM -0700, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> In this case, the RFCs are out of touch with reality.  Usually the RFC's
> are really good, but in this case they got it wrong.  RFC must adapt to
> existing practice, not other way around.  All successful RFC's worked
> like that.

You don't seem to understand:  Reply-To munging _destroys information_.
It's not suitable for standardization in it's current form.

Such `current practice' (which it's really not -- it's far from universal)
certainly shouldn't be `standardized' unless this is fixed, and it can't be
fixed without introducing new rules (e.g. a new header to hold the destroyed
information, and modifying the various standard behaviors to account for it),
and if you introduce new rules, then things won't work correctly until all
the MUAs/MLMs are updated to follow them.

And if your plan doesn't work without modifying all existing software (which
is inevitably a long and drawn-out process), then _why not simply fix the
MUAs to work with current RFCs instead?_  Wow, simple!

-Miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here, 
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?