After reading the Considered Harmful article, I no longer have a strong
opinion on the issue and could live with either configuration. I'll just
tailor my mail software to my list usage behaviors. I retract my vote
for munging and would rather abstain.
While munging is convenient for mailing lists
On Wednesday 08 September 2004 10:50 am, Robert Giles wrote:
> From what I remember, Jeff reconfigured the list "Reply-to" behavior last
> time without taking a vote or providing reasons for doing so ahead of
> time...
>
From what the archive says in 6/2003 and 7/2003, there was a vote in the
for
At 10:09 9/8/04, you wrote:
Also the burden of proof is on your end, since you want to change the
status-quo on this list. To convince me you will have to provide more
reasons than "me and a handful of other guys want it this way so lets
enforce it on everyone".
From what I remember, Jeff reconfig
I have counter points to each of these, but I'll start with the low
hanging fruit as I run off to class.
I'll consider the RFC stuff this evening, but from what I got glancing
at it I saw nothing that strengthens your point. Yes the reply-to
header exists, but the correct way of using the header
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:03:41PM -0700, Scott James Cederberg wrote:
> I have to say, I'm pretty convinced by the "Considered Harmful" article.
> I vote to keep things the way they are.
same here.
-jason pepas
___
Siglinux mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
Omar El-Domeiri wrote:
I vote to not munge the reply-to, and I would appreciate if those who
think we should change the current behavior to read the following
link:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Hey, it's Chip Rosenthal! Oh, wait. He's not President of Teh
InturWeb yet.
Tha
I have to say, I'm pretty convinced by the "Considered Harmful" article.
I vote to keep things the way they are.
Scott
___
Siglinux mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://machito.utacm.org/mailman/listin
Ryan Smith wrote:
Personally, I don't have an opinion either way I think its a rather
petty issue.
Possibly true.
On the other hand I am of the opinion that a more appropriate place for
off-topic threads such as this should be held in the forum, and only
announced once to the list. Just my $0
I vote to not munge the reply-to, and I would appreciate if those who
think we should change the current behavior to read the following
link:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>From what I can tell, those who want to change the behaviour are just
unable to use their mailer programs co
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 06:04:56PM -0500, Ryan Smith wrote:
> On the other hand I am of the opinion that a more appropriate place for
> off-topic threads such as this should be held in the forum, and only
> announced once to the list. Just my $0.02
I think this thread is very on-topic; it affec
Personally, I don't have an opinion either way I think its a rather
petty issue.
On the other hand I am of the opinion that a more appropriate place for
off-topic threads such as this should be held in the forum, and only
announced once to the list. Just my $0.02
-R
Doc Shipley wrote:
I thi
On Sep 7, 2004, at 5:28 PM, Doc Shipley wrote:
Right now the vote stands at about 5-2 for changing reply-top
behavior.
I vote for changing Reply-to. That's 6-2.
___
Siglinux mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://machito.utacm.org/mailman/listinfo/sigli
I think you just proved my point. This discussion directly relates
to, and may affect, siglinux. The rest of the list may wish to see your
reasoning, and I DID NOT AND DO NOT WISH FOR IT TO BECOME PRIVATE.
The topic has not changed at all. I asked if you were voting to keep
current behav
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:37:52PM -0500, Jeff Strunk wrote:
> The reasoning behind the current behavior is that MUAs have reply-to-all as a
> standard feature. In mozilla mail, evolution, and kmail there is a button for
> reply-to-all. In mutt the default key is g to reply-to-all. Pine seems to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing is, reply-to-all isn't what we want. If I send an email to the
_list_, it doesn't also need to go to the sender of the original message
because then you get two copies.
And how often do you send a reply to a message from this list that needs
t
I know I fully agree with the second paragraph.
If your like me, (if you know me you might laugh at this) that some times a
reply can be totally off topic. I know I've been very pleased that I've only
looked like a total fool to one person and not the entire mailing list.
Big Mike
On Sun, Sep
The reasoning behind the current behavior is that MUAs have reply-to-all as a
standard feature. In mozilla mail, evolution, and kmail there is a button for
reply-to-all. In mutt the default key is g to reply-to-all. Pine seems to be
the only one I just now checked that is missing this feature.
I vote in favor of the reply-to being [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-matt
___
Siglinux mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://machito.utacm.org/mailman/listinfo/siglinux
18 matches
Mail list logo
