Chris Louden wrote:
> We beat this to a pulp on the oclug mailing list just a few days ago.
>
> Basically it makes sense from any logical point of view for a mailing
> list. Specifically that most responses generally want to reply to the
> entire list so that an actual conversation can take place.
>
> However setting it to reply to list by default violates RFC 2822 apparently.
>
> Which is not to say your going to hell if you do. Just that you place
> the ease of allowing members of the mailing list to simply hit reply
> to communicate with the entire list over adhering to standards.
>
> Is it really an inconvenience to hit reply to all, no. However its not
> what we normally do to emails so it seem like an inconvenience.
>
> Also many modern mail clients are smart and have a "reply to list"
> option. This does not apply to those of us that use gmail sadly.
>
> The munging that takes place isn't really going to prevent all that
> much spam from coming your way eventually I see no reason to use reply
> to poster over list.
>
> Apparently the list moderator for OCLUG and at least one guy at UCI
> feel that reply to poster is the way to go. I am on numerous lug
> mailing lists and all of them except OCLUG use reply to mailing list.
> However this could be just in based on the fact that they are LUGs and
> not dev lists or etc.
>
> If you really want to understand the reasons why just wrap you brain
> around RFC 2822 which is just a google search away.
>
> ...Now I'm probably going to get reamed for top posting. Which RFC is that?
>
Thanks Chris (and I forgive you).
You know, with only a quick look at rfc 2822. I would think there might
be an argument that the list _is_ the sender ("re-sender", maybe), and
that there is no inconsistency in having reply-to be back to the list.
Different readers give different readings?
Thanks again,
..jim ('course, maybe I read it too fast)
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
