Mikael Johansson wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Misha Aizatulin wrote: > > Here is an argument against Reply-To munging. I'd say I agree with it: > > > >http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > * It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer. > [...] > 1) get multiple copies of mails concerning discussions I participate in or > 2) have to manually re-edit the header each and every time I want to keep > a discussion on a mailing list, possibly with added trouble finding the > right adress to send to
A reasonable mailer has functions "reply", "reply-to-all" and
"reply-to-list". I'm composing this mail using "reply-to-list", have to
edit no headers, the reply goes to the list and nobody gets duplicate
copies.
> * It removes important information, which can make it impossible to
> get back to the message sender.
This is the most important bit, actually. Anyone who wants to post a
single question to haskell or haskell-cafe has to be subscribed, or the
reply may go to the list, no matter what he put into the reply-to
header. Is it a good thing to shut out casual users?
> I view pine as something that should be classified as
> reasonable
Pein (sic!) is not reasonable. If you love it so much, please whip out
the source code, implement a "reply-to-list" function and get at least
one mailer removed from a silly debate.
> I disagree.
> I don't agree.
> I don't agree.
> I don't agree.
> I don't agree.
Very convincing. Keep up the good work.
Udo.
--
Hast du zum Leben kein Motiv --
steig mal vor, vielleicht geht's schief.
-- aus einem Gipfelbuch
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
