-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just my vote (not that it weighs anything, but...):
The standard behaviour in a mailing list is discussion, i.e. replying in a way so that everybody can participate, not to fork off 1-to-1 communication. To achieve this, one needs to make sure, that (at least one copy of) the reply is sent to the mailing list, and here the "traditional" method has two structural and big disadvantages over the "reply-to" method: 1) Replying per default (ok, depends on MUA) creates a fork off into 1-to-1 communication. 2) Replying to the list (via "Reply to all") without special user intervention will _always_ send off two copies of the reply. The use of the copy to the individual predecessor in the thread is at least questionable from my perspective. And it tends to annoy people! Because to me the advantage of the "traditional" method has not been made plausible, I don't understand the decision. Either you want to discuss something on the list, so you join and post. Or you just don't do it. The only advantage of the "traditional" method, I heard of yet, was making it easy to answer to outsiders asking questions to the list. That's a rare circumstance in my experience! So my vote is for the "reply-to" method. Tilman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE4GmO9ZPu6Yae8lkRAg/MAJ4i9UiSPILtySFAP4iPiGT97RycPQCeNm+M 3EzM4y5R+KWJgq7SkRmVCKU= =eRWS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
