Felix Miata wrote:
> Maybe people should be allowed to choose a MUA based on whether its
> entire feature set best meets their overall needs.
Maybe people who choose to use an MUA which is deficient in one area or
another should complain to the authors of the MUA about said deficiencies
instea
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-12-18 07:33:53, schrieb Felix Miata:
> > This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
> > list. You can't have a public discussion when people make their replies
> > private.
> Maybe you should use a RFC-Compliant MUA
> which suppo
Am 2005-12-18 07:33:53, schrieb Felix Miata:
> That's only one admin's opinion. I find the opposite superior:
> http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
>
> This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
> list. You can't have a public discussion when people
Felix Miata wrote:
> The default (passive) choice to a public discussion list should always
> be to the list, requiring no more thought than choosing to reply at all.
> Choosing not to reply to the group should require an active choice, not
> a passive choice. Private replies add nothing to the dis
Steve Lamb wrote:
>> Felix Miata wrote:
> >> This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private answers
> >> list. You can't have a public discussion when people make their replies
> >> private.
> And it is up to the individual on how they wish to reply. Quite frankly
> if s
On 2005-12-18, Felix Miata penned:
>
> That's only one admin's opinion. I find the opposite superior:
> http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
>
> This is a public discussion list, not a public questions/private
> answers list. You can't have a public discussion when people make
> th
Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:36:10 -0800
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some software does honor list-post and those that don't often have a bug
filed against it for failing to do so.
How comes traditional *nix mailers can handle non-munging AND munging correctly
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:36:10 -0800
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some software does honor list-post and those that don't often have a bug
> filed against it for failing to do so.
How comes traditional *nix mailers can handle non-munging AND munging correctly
and newer clients (of
On 12/19/05, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Lamb wrote:
> > business. The [b]sender[/b] gets to choose.
>
> This is the result of too much time posting to phpbb forums. Mia culpa!
Could be worse. You could have written:
The
.B sender
gets to choose.
--
Michael A. Marsh
http:
Steve Lamb wrote:
> business. The [b]sender[/b] gets to choose.
This is the result of too much time posting to phpbb forums. Mia culpa!
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of soul
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> That's only one admin's opinion. I find the opposite superior:
>> http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-useful.html
Felix (I know, I'm replying to Mike but attribution is corerct here), this
page is simply outdated. It references 822 and was wri
this message :-P)
No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
<http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
OK, I feel really embarrassed for my ignor
this message :-P)
No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
<http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
That's only one admin's op
o, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
<http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
Every list has its hot buttons which can spawn flame wars.
This
e :-P)
No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
.
OK, I feel really embarrassed for my ignorance... I
didn't even knew what munging means (no
dd a reply-to field on the messages we send
> > > to the list. (although I forgot to do this with this message :-P)
>
> > No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
> > subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
>
this with this message :-P)
> No, we shouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
> subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
> applied by this list) is available at
> <http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
That's
ouldn't :) See archives for various long arguments on the
subject of Reply-To: munging. The rationale behind not doing so (as
applied by this list) is available at
<http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>.
--
Jon Dowland
http://alcopop.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On 6/11/05, Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, we solved the problem of accidently sending replies to individuals
> by using a "Reply-To:" in the header with the lists address. Not exactly
> a "pure" solution, but it works.
Did you open this can o' worms on purpose, or do you just not kno
19 matches
Mail list logo
