[LAD] ReplyTo munging (Was: What hardware is actually used by freebob/ffado users?)

On 7/31/07, Thomas Vecchione <seablaede@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> Dang it, I apologize to the list, I forgot this list DOES reply to the list
> when I hit reply, and nto reply to all.
>
> Seablade

I must admit this is a issue I wanted to raise for a while now...

For those of you who haven't heard, there has been a very long debate
on whether replyto munging was or wasn't a god practice. Each side had
a reference paper stating a number of pros and cons :

- http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
- http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html

The fight between Simon Hill and Chip Rosenthal finaly ended in 2001
when a new RFC obsoleting RFC 822 appeared, RFC2822.

Here's a paper from Neale Pickett stating the final story :
http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful

I strongly consider turning munging off on LAD and LAU. I know this
might start some flames, but isn't it good free software philosophy to
stick to the standards, especially when it comes to a recently
reviewed RFC ?

If someone can give me an argument that is not present in the 3
previously linked documents stating why we need to munge our headers,
I'll turn munging off next week.

Regards,
__________________
Marc-Olivier Barre.
Your favorite list administrator :-)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Aug 1 00:15:02 2007