On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:38:19 -0600 (CST), Satish Balay <balay@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jonathan Berry wrote: > > > I prefer to get the personal email since it makes it easier to tell > > when someone has replied to my message. > > I guess you woun't see this message as I'll remove your address from > the receipent list and retain just the list address :) Heh, I already moved the thread to my inbox, so yes I did see it :). > > I am on another list that does not do the Reply-To spoofing, and I > > like this much better. > > Yeah - I subscribe to one such list - and I hate this default > behavior. > > > To reply to the email, you use the Reply to All option and the email > > goes to the list and the author. I don't think this would work very > > well with as many "newbies" as there are, and no doubt there would > > be many emails not sent to the list that were meant to be (by > > experienced users as well as newbies, I'm sure). I don't want to > > start a flame war, just pointing out that there are alternatives. > > <feeding the flamewar> > > In mailing lists - (for both newbees & experienced users) - the 99% of > the replies should be back to the list - so my belief is - modifying > the 'reply-to' by the list is the correct thing. (I guess fedora-list > should strip off previous 'reply-to' - and avoid this gmail fiasco - > there are some individual users - who also set reply-to field as well) Yes, but I believe the argument against this is that you expect the reply function to go to the author, and you can only tell that it doesn't if you look at the header of the email. Forbid that you should actually look at the To: field of the email you send to see to whom it is actually addressed : ). > For the remaining 1% replies - where the reply shouldn't go to the > list - there should be an additional feature in the e-mail client > 'reply-to-author' which ignores the 'reply-to' field - and just > replies to the 'from:author' filed. This would be interesting. But it seems some people get just reply and reply to all confused. Though in most cases, this would do the same thing as reply. > All the docs on the web which claim 'reply-to' is evil ignore this > simple fact (optimize for common use) - and grumble - I can't > reply-to-author - so 'reply-to' is evil. > > For the 1% case - I'll sugest - just emulate that behavior by using > 'forward function' & copy/paste the address. > > Satish I'd suggest you simply reply, and then edit the To: and Cc: lists. Same result, but sometimes Forward and Reply do not act the same as far as quoting. Jonathan
