On Saturday 22 March 2008 06:33, Da Rock wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 22:38 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > --On March 22, 2008 1:10:40 PM +1000 Da Rock > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 02:58 +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote: > > >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:57AM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > >> > This may have been suggested or discussed before, but is there a > > >> > reason why the reply-to on this list isn't the list itself instead > > >> > of the person who posted? Ie reply-to: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > >> > > >> Because many people who ask questions here are not subscribed to the > > >> list and thus would not see any answers that were sent only to the > > >> list. > > > > > > Well that certainly explains it, but it does surprise me. I thought > > > you'd have to subscribe to post. > > > > And *I* thought it was proper etiquette to only reply to the list. > > Me too.
This discussion takes place regularly on every mailing list in existence. The main arguments against it seem to be that a) it might trash an existing reply-to header and make it impossible to send an individual reply; b) in the event of user error it fails safely - list reply ends up going to an individual - rather than the potentially catastrophic private-reply-to-publically-archived-mailing-list failure. Google for reply-to munging considered harmful for more argument on both sides. As regards copying the original recipients, this list specifically requests it: check the regular posting titled ``how to get best results from freebsd-questions'', particularly para VII.6. Jonathan _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
