On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
Sorry for replying again on this thread, but I found a few more
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
It may be common knowledge. It is not reflexive behaviour. People reach for
plain reply by habit. Happens all the time, very common.
Since you are taking your assumptions as truth, I'll do the same:
The only people that
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
will just
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
clicking reply to all; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
is lost.
Why does
Tim:
In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
will just hit reply, and expect it to do the right thing.
Felipe Contreras:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Tim:
In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
that most people wouldn't do that if it wasn't preset for them. People
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
are intended to keep replies on the list, and the list managers know
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
In my opinion, many lists set the reply-to address because those lists
On 11Jul2010 01:06, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:20 AM, Felipe Contreras
| felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au
On 09Jul2010 12:03, Kwan Lowe k...@digitalhermit.com wrote:
| On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
| pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
| [snip]
| I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
| in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 12:10 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
Can the in-reply-to header be embedded in a mailto: link?
You can only really rely on the to address making through a mailto
link. And even then, it's only going to work when someone has a
configured mail client on the system.
It
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:18 +0930, Tim wrote:
A new post button, to write a new message to that group, that wasn't
an erroneous reply to a prior post. A feature sadly lacking from mail
clients when they're working with list mail, that could quite easily
be added to the toolbar (or an
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
I also agree with the rest of your post (and see no reason to quote it
in its entirety :-), but I wonder if we're all just rearranging the
deckchairs on the Titanic when it comes to mailing lists. I have the
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 09:24 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I wonder if we're all just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic
when it comes to mailing lists. I have the impression that the whole
ml thing is actually a poor man's Usenet, invented because everyone
has mail.
I've had the
Hi,
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
Before starting it's worth to keep in mind that munging is a *default*
that is possible to manually change, and some clients have the option
to
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:14:23 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Why does no-one ever mention Reply To List as the proper way to, duh,
reply to the list?
Probably because all the mail clients I've seen have it hidden
somewhere down inside some obscure pull-down and users don't
even know such a
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
clicking reply to all; it's a matter of habit, but no functionality
is lost.
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:14:23 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan pocallag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 13:29 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Also, people that are used to Reply-To munging can get used to
clicking reply to
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen a summary of this big thread, so I'm going to try to
write one. I'll focus on Reply-To munging here (orthogonal to
non-subscribers).
An unsurprisingly biased and inaccurate summary...
--
users
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:14 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Why does no-one ever mention Reply To List as the proper way to,
duh, reply to the list?
Probably because it's hardly ever seen as an option to the user (it's
hidden, or simply not offered). Mail clients are often quite awful, and
20 matches
Mail list logo
