Well, Ok this behaves as expected. Hitting "Reply All" does reply to everyone in the to and cc lists. To me this is reasonable and sensible, which is all well and good. Of course this is because I have been thinking as a person who just uses things...but now that I have been drifting back into admining things I am getting interested in having all these things. I think "mung with care" might be a good way to go. Of course this can too lead to trouble. But overall it would be nice that things work the way they are advetized. Reply should reply to the sender, in this case the mailing list involved. Reply All should reply to everyone in the to and cc fields. I mean I have to teach this stuff to people and it is really irksome if it seems all contradictory, or if I have to say "this works some of the time" to too many people. In the same way I get really rattled when people turn Linux into a religion and fail to point out the common sense approach it takes to things and that it is an alternative to expensive products. Now if it was just easy to make sure that normals could hookup their DSL or Cable Modem that would real good...but I do digress. Have Fun, Sends Steve Daniel Veditz wrote: Maarten wrote:I noticed that this list (-software) unlike many others does not add a "Reply-To: field with the list address there. This makes replying a wee bit more error-prone since a lot of MUA's will happily reply to the poster instead of the list unless you manually cut&paste the right addresses.Is there a special reason this header isn't used ?"-software"? I received this on full-disclosure. Which list would be put in the Reply-to header? See the articles "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful" http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html "Reply-To Munging Considered Useful" http://www.metasystema.net/essays/reply-to.mhtml -Dan Veditz _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html |
- [Full-Disclosure] meta-question about the list Maarten
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] meta-question about the li... Daniel Veditz
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] meta-question about th... Steve Kudlak
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] meta-question about the li... Brendan Dolan-Gavitt