mail to individuals

[Odd]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:07:06 +0200 Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
> 
>> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 01:09:09 -0400 Michael Haney
>>> <thezorch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> First of all, that's an unreasonable request.
>>> If it an unreasonable request to ask that you at least /try/ 
>>> something new and different then we really have no common ground
>>> at all.
>> It may be unreasonable to many, since the issue at hand can be 
>> fixed by the list admin in one minute by adding a Reply-To: header.
>> Migrating to another client will take far more time for one person,
>> let alone x number of people.
>> 
> And have /you/ read: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html 
> and http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html ? If
> so, how can you still advocate non-compliance?

The first link talks about 'reasonable mail programs'.
I disagree with his definition of a 'reasonable mail program'.
Like I said before, why would you think your argument gains
any more weight just because it's uttered on a web page
instead of here?

The next link is basically a repetition of the first. Again,
why would you think your argument gains any more weight
just because it's on a web page instead of here?

> I don't know about you (and your 'brothers in argument'), but I like 
> the internet and want to comply with the rules which have been 
> thoroughly argued-through and worked out by folks that know 
> considerably more about it than you and I.

How would you know how much I know about it? Just because
I disagree with a socalled 'standard' does not mean I don't fully
understand it. This isn't rocket science by any means.

> I must say, I think your (the Royal, "your," of course, not just you 
> alone) attitude reflects the Windows Way of doing things: One broken
> program to do /way/ too many things.

Well, you are free to compare it with the Windows way.
I'm simply advocating what makes the most sense.

-- 
Odd