Dave, et al -- ...and then Dave G said... % % This is, I suppose, a completely off topic thread. However, I just
It sure is. And this has come up many times before. It's all in the archives. The only reason I bother to answer when the problem rears its head again is to fight, tooth and nail, to prevent the idea from coming to fruition this time even if it hasn't the countless times in the past. % read the web page % http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html I'm glad you took the time to read it. That's more than some can bother to do. ... % The complaints as outlined on the web page are somewhat silly. When Heh. So is this argument, but we're here :-) % saying that replying to the mail author is a big hassle on mailing % systems with "munging" the web page author says that one has to "write % down" the sender's email address and other steps which simply don't Admitted, although these days copy-n-paste is often considered the equivalent of writing something down. I think, however, that the author means that having to specifically take note of the address is the painful thing. With a Reply-To: field in place you no longer have the choice of replying to the sender or to the list, so if you want to exercise a different choice you have to work around your obedient mail software to ignore such a header. % apply. I'm using Outlook, and I've always been able to just double click If you'll allow me to take the gloves off for a moment, it is Microsoft and Outlook which have made major damaging "contributions" to email and news communications. Outlook doesn't want to bother its users with such [supposed] frivolity as headers, and is busy autoformatting text and playing with fonts and colors and such, and as a result valuable information is lost or ignored and we have mile-long TOFU posts that just waste time and space. Internet email and news have been around a long longer than Outlook and were just fine before someone decided "Hey, let's throw away these established working practices and do something entirely different". Lotus Notes did basically the same thing but it never really caught on and so we don't have the same plague from that, and now as I understand it Notes is much smarter about working with the Internet. ... % There's even a privacy argument to be made that some people may prefer % a list where their own address is not shown. What they post is for, and % in context of, the list only, and not an invitation for private mail. In % some situations, I think that would be fair. Phooey. Unless a list is an anonymous remailer the sender information is available no matter how the Reply-To: field is set. % "Coddling the Brain-Dead, Penalizing the Conscientious" is just % needlessly inflammatory and biased. If the over whelming majority of Call it what you will, but with an Outlook-ization of the 'net and the web a bunch of brain-dead users is basically what you have. % people expect a system to behave one way, that's not evidence that they % are "brain dead", but that it's very likely the expected behaviour is But if that one way is a broken way then it is just such evidence! Perhaps a better definition is "ignorant" or "miseducated" but the point remains that those who know what they're doing don't do it the wrong way and won't willingly put up with a broken system. ... % "Freedom of choice" is equally satisfied by automatically going to the % list but being able to choose to send to the email author. It's the % exact equivalent of automatically going to the author but being able to % choose to send to the list. Equivalent, yes, but so was segregation -- separate but equal facilities. That didn't make segregation right, and it doesn't make a broken system right. % "It Adds Nothing" is absolutely false. Being able to automatically % respond to the list adds more naturally expected behaviour. See above for "miseducated" explanation. % I could go on, point by point. But I have a feeling it would fall on % deaf ears. If the overwhelming evidence that so many mailing lists and Mostly it would. At least I hope it would! % so many people on them function very well on email lists where the mail % automatically goes to the list is not evidence enough, than I doubt % anything ever will be. Just because does not appear obviously and painfully broken does not mean that it is being done right, especially when those suffering don't know that the suffering is needless and not normal! % Telling people that they need to use proper email software and go % about things in the way they don't expect is not a path to sensible % human interfaces. Computers, machines, systems, should match us, not us % to them. In any case, despite the difficulties, computers are much % easier to change than people. Yep. So change Microsoft's products' behavior, along with that of a few others, and let's fix this problem the right way from the root. % I remain steadfast in my opinion that automatically replying to the % list is a much more natural option. Your opinion is yours to have; everyone has one. Meanwhile, I remain the loyal opposition stating that having the list specify a Reply-To: header is clearly and absolutely wrong for a list such as this. HTH & HAND :-D -- David T-G * There is too much animal courage in (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * society and not sufficient moral courage. (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mary Baker Eddy, "Science and Health" http://justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
