Hi, On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 11:01:43, Felix Miata wrote: > On 06/08/11 15:56 (GMT+0200) Henne Vogelsang apparently typed: > > On Friday, August 11, 2006 at 15:08:43, houghi wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 03:03:51PM +0200, Andreas Vetter wrote: > > >> > > What do others think about this on that list? > > >> > (reply-to should go to the list) + 1 > > >> +1 > > > Please read > > > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > http://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html > > Now read: http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html > > and remember, this is a group discussion list, not a public > questions/private answers list. There is infrequently any need for > private replies to posters of such lists. It benefits the group greatly > to have most answers available to all subscribers. As a consequence, the > ease with which the exceptions may reply privately or not is simply not > important.
The part of the "problem" that is about "where should the default answer go to" is totally debateable i agree. There are good arguments for both sides and i wouldnt like to decide based on them. You and the author of that page forget one thing. Its impossible to set a reply to if the list adds one. The mailinglist software has to remove all reply-to headers first and the insert the list one. So if i want answers only to some mailbox (there are tons of reasons to do so) reply-to munging makes this impossible. Henne P.S. That the page cites the wrong (old) RFC is there too but oh well.. -- Henne Vogelsang, http://hennevogel.de "To die. In the rain. Alone." Ernest Hemingway
