|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Why don't we just put it to a vote?
mjd-perl-pm@plover.com wrote:
>
> > This feature does add something: convinience - it optimizes for the
> > common case.
>
> But it doesn't optimize. With most mailers, sending a reply to all
> the recipients is just exactly as easy as sending a reply to just the
> original author. So there's nothing gained for those people by
> putting in the 'Reply-To'.
All recipients, in this case, are the list and the sender (see below).
> > It doesn't actually remove choices.
>
> It does for many people. Not everyone uses mutt; most mailers do not
> have an option to ignore the reply-to header. People using these
> mailers will have to pound on the To: line manually.
Right, which is still a choice - and not a tough one for anyone with any
sort of copy-and-paste feature.
> > I have never experienced the "Can't Find My Way Back Home" problem, nor
> > heard of it.
>
> Whether or not you have heard of the problem, it exists.
>
> There have been occasions in the past when I wanted to send mail to
> the pm list and have replies sent elsewhere. But because of the
> header mangling, there is no way to do that, because the list manager
> has decided he knows better than I do what is appropriate.
There are two obvious work-arounds for this. Of course, you don't want
to set them up - but overall, I feel that the extra power is not worth
the extra hassle.
> > Also, it's easily fixable - just move the old reply-to to
> > x-old-reply-to (or whatever)
>
> That is not 'fixing' it; that is *breaking* it. The original author
> wanted replies sent to a certain place, and the mailing list has
> removed that request and stuck it in an X-header that many mailers
> will not even display.
A mailer which will not allow you to view headers is broken. Also, the
author may easily express her wishes via the body of the message.
Finally, the convinience is still greater with munged reply-to's
> > On an un-munged list, when I hit "reply to all" (and don't edit - if I
> > do edit, it's just as easy either way), I end up sending two messages:
> > one to the list, and one to the original sender. The original author
> > may then begin to reply to the personal message, only to realize that
> > she wants her message to go to the list - so she has to hunt down the
> > list address and go back and type it in.
>
> I find that very difficult to believe. I have never seen a mailer
> that behaves the way you say. It is much more common for a
> reply-to-all feature to send *one* message, with both the list and the
> private recipient listed in the message header.
>
> Are you sure your description is correct? Please do a "reply to all"
> reply to this message, so I can see what you are talking about.
Ok, to be technical, you are correct. As a practical matter, the
recipient sees two copies (or at least, I do).
--
-Dave Turner Stalk me: (215)-545-2859
My game of Advocacy is different from ordinary games of Advocacy in
that players vote for the reason they think will get the median
number of votes. This is better than standard advocacy because...
**Majordomo list services provided by PANIX <URL:http://www.panix.com>**
**To Unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe phl" to majordomo@lists.pm.org**
|
|