The consensus on the mailing list from
munging is that Reply-To:
is The Right Thing.
The list is
back to the old behavior and everyone has stopped complaining.
The topic now (very light traffic on this) is the removal of HTML in email.
Or rather, HTML and attachments altogether, which I am in full agreement
with. Attachments are evil (heck, MIME is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil but
that's another rant); the worst I saw (when I worked at an ISP) was some guy
who blew his disk quota by sending not only the files he was working on, but
the application as well, so he could work on them from home.
The ISP allows 10M of disk space, which is quite generous for email (for the
record, I currently have 14M of email saved (everything I write gets saved
just in case) and it works out to 3,457 messages (or an average of 4k per
message and yes, a lot of those can be deleted).
Anyway, one of the requests, from Peter Turnbull, was:
My request-for-enhancement is:
``do something'' about HTML, or better still, ``do something'' about
any ``multipart/alternative'' posting (which would include M$
richtext, with those application/ms-tnef attachments).
Options I can think of:
a) silently discard any such postings (probably not a good idea)
b) bounce them back to the author, with an explanation of why bounced
c) remove the non-text part
d) combination of (b) and (c)
e) accept, but warn the author (who may not realise (s)he's sent HTML)
Can't argue with those.
You have my permission to link freely to any entry here. Go
ahead, I won't bite. I promise.
The dates are the permanent links to that day's entries (or
entry, if there is only one entry). The titles are the permanent
links to that entry only. The format for the links are
simple: Start with the base link for this site: http://boston.conman.org/, then add the date you are
interested in, say 2000/08/01,
so that would make the final URL:
You can also specify the entire month by leaving off the day
portion. You can even select an arbitrary portion of time.
You may also note subtle shading of the links and that's
intentional: the “closer” the link is (relative to the
page) the “brighter” it appears. It's an experiment in
using color shading to denote the distance a link is from here. If
you don't notice it, don't worry; it's not all that
It is assumed that every brand name, slogan, corporate name,
symbol, design element, et cetera mentioned in these pages is a
protected and/or trademarked entity, the sole property of its
owner(s), and acknowledgement of this status is implied.