On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 07:54 +1100, Ben Schmidt wrote:
>
> Hey! I like lists without Reply-To set. I don't think they're braindead,
We need to agree to disagree Ben :)
> However, your point is valid. If you *really* want to keep all
> discussion public for a list, Reply-To is a way to achieve
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:25 -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't like that preference because I would much rather get
> the LIST post than the direct one.
>
also, some list software can be configured that if it sees a direct
copy, it wont send them the list copy, mailman has
On 2014-01-20 3:25 PM, Ben Schmidt wrote:
Are you referring to the claim that mailing list managers filter out
recipients who have been given a direct copy? Can you refer me to an MLM
that actually does this, with some definite proof that it does? Because
I've heard rumours that they do this, bu
Reply All should also honor Reply-To: IMHO.
Example:
Suppose that Secretary Suzy sends Jack an e-mail, with Reply-To: set
to Boss Bob, and there is a Cc: to Amy.
From: Secretary Suzy
Reply To: Bob Boss
To: Jack
Cc: Amy
Jack hits Reply All, and the mail should go To: Boss Bob in
Dont quite get you there, but its pretty simple,
we are on a list, having an open discussion, if you reply to me, or I,
you, then it should go by the list, on this list very simple, its
configured correctly by having reply-to set, to the list, problem does
not exist, if you reply, or reply-all, at
The vast majority of MUA software on the planet has only Reply and
Reply All. Those users are using Reply All, so as to keep it a group
discussion.
"Reply All" has a standard, decades old behavior, and mailing list
robots are designed around the assumption that it is used.
Email, and certainly
