On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:02:22PM -0500, Doc Shipley wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:39:10PM -0500, Doc Shipley wrote:
> > And when do we get to fix the damned reply-to? Please delete my
> > address from the To: lines of any replies.
>
> As I remember the last time it came up, NOBODY who was in favor of the
> current method is still active on the list. Show of hands? Who'd
> like to see replies go automatically to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who wants
> to see replies continue to point at the sender?
I prefer the current Reply-To behavior. Mutt has list reply bound to
`L' by default, although mailing lists must be specified in .muttrc.
Proper Reply-To is a feature for educated users with modern software; I
sometimes send personal replies with minor corrections and additional
advice.
> I personally think the list at large loses a lot of good input because
> someone posts an answer to a question and forgets to add/change the
> To: list, so only the one who asks ever sees it.
I doubt many subscribers who cannot use their mailers are generating
constructive replies.
> If there's a clear majority of opinion either way, I'll either STFU or
> take it up with Jeff myself.
'"Reply-To" Munging Considered Harmful' is the standard rebuttal:
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
If the current behavior bothers readers so much, I suggest they learn
how to use procmail. One can filter duplicate messages and munge
Reply-To with a few lines.
--
Andrew Gaul
http://gaul.org/
September already?
pgpdCby1n4gQ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Siglinux mailing list [email protected] http://www.utacm.org:81/mailman/listinfo/siglinux
