On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 04:56:22PM +0100, Christopher Woods wrote:
To me it's absolutely natural. If I want to reach (only) the author, I use "reply". When I want to reach everyone who wrote or got the mail, I use "reply to all". That's exactly what I would expect given the names of these functions. Using reply-to munging renders the "reply" function unusable. Without manual inspection (i.e. removing the list address from the recipients) I cannot reply only to the author (and yes, I do that often enough for it to be annoying).It seems a little 'unnatural' to me,
Actually, it's the fault of your MUA if people do get copies they do not want. The "Mail-Followup-To" header indicates where to send group replies (whereas Reply-To indicates where to send replies intended only for the original author). Outlook and some others are well known for not supporting this header (besides other things, BTW - I hope you can even _read_ this mail because it's PGP/MIME signed).I've been used to sending mails to amailing list by addressing it directly and relying on the list to send that out to other users. This would seem to me to be the most appropriate method, regardless of whether it's the 'correct way' - my reasoning for this isbecause some users will not wish to receive instant updates, rather receiving their messages in a digest format.
CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
