No subject


Sun Jun 2 12:36:39 EDT 2013


of network mailing, I find the irritation of having to RE-send
something to the list because it went only to the sender to
far, far outweigh the embarrassment of things that went to the
list by mistake.  On a more objective note, when someone replies
to a non-reply-to list, in my experience they generally do a
reply-to-all -- which means that the recipient is penalised by
getting *two* copies.  Yes, yes -- appropriate use of procmail
can deal with that, but it's still a bandage and the solution
falls into the 'if everyone had a sane mail reader' bucket.

> List discussion will happen whether or not the list has reply-to
> munging, so saying that the list is intended to promote discussion is
> why we have reply-to munging is a red herring at best and disingenuous
> at worst.

I disagree.  When my irritation at having to re-send hits a
certain threshold, the list becomes too much of a bother and
I leave it.  That's not a promotion of discussion.

> > Freedom of Choice
> 
> Completely wrong in that reply-to munging forces
> you to jump through a lot of hoops to not send something
> to the list.

Bologna.  Either method forces hoops on the user.  On puts
obstacles in the way of sending mail privately, and the
other puts obstacles in the way of sending to the list.

> > Some Mailers are Broken
> 
> I agree that some mailers are broken, but this is not a
> good reason for reply-to munging.

More bologna.  In other words, this is a purely subjective
issue.  My opinion differs from yours; that doesn't make either
one 'right'.
-- 
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"



More information about the TriLUG mailing list