Alessandro Forghieri wrote: > Greetings. > > >>Nigel Peck wrote: >> >>>Thanks for the help. When did I reply to you privately? >> >>This was just to reiterate for everybody to keep the threads on the >>list. Since many times those who respond to the questions, suffer >>afterwards because people decide that the person answering >>the question, >>is a free help desk that you can ask about anything, not >>talking about > > [...] > > Stas, as one that has been guilty of the same "offence", let me point out > that 99.9% of the time, seemingly private responses emerge from the list > manager's policy of not munging the Reply-to: header - so the poor schmuck > (me) hits reply and fires off a private reply to the poster. > > I know all about "Reply-to: munging considered harmful" and attending flame > wars and I do not wish to delve into the relative pros and cons of the > diveded camps (I'll just say that the lists I administer do the munging - > period). What I wish to do is pointing out that - on non-munging lists - > most standard clients require a conscious decision if they want to reply to > the list, despite the fact that this would be the actual intention most of > the times (so it makes for a poor interface). People stuck - like me - in > Outlook-land have it even worse than most.
I'm +1 on using a preset 'Reply-to:' header. httpd-dev seems to use it solely for the reason you describe. I'm all for helping people to reply back to the list. Ask, can we please have this header set? -- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
