Subject: Re: Reply-to header
From: Alexander Skwar (ASkwar@DigitalProjects.com)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 13:13:36 CDT
On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 08:32:37AM -0500, faught@rstcorp.com wrote:
> I like mutt's "reply to list" option - "L". When you've told mutt about
> your mailing lists, this feature will do the right thing with the
> replies.
Yes, I know that mutt has an option do to this, but you, I and every mutt
user has to configure it, whereas in a correctly configured list only the
admin ( *1* person) has to configure something. And inferior mail clients
do not provide such a feature.
> The paradigm I'm used to is that a "reply" goes to only one person, and
> a "group reply" or mutt's "reply to list" will reply to many people.
> With the Reply-to set to back to the list, that breaks the paradigm, and
> increases the changes that private mail will be sent out to everyone by
> accident.
The paradigm I'm used to is that a "reply" goes back to where the mail come
from, and that special functions are used to send mail to some place else.
And when I want to write a private reply, which doesn't happen at all, I
simply deny the question about whether I want to honor the Reply-To: header.
Without the Reply-To set back the list, which breaks MY paradigm, it
increases the that I sent a mail, which was meant for everyone, only to the
sender by accident, and it makes me send out two identical mails; one to the
list, and one to the sender. So I have to either cancel the mail and start
all over again if I don't know the address of the list (which BTW I have to
right now because of the IMO mis-configuration of the list) or insert the
recipient. Both is more work than would have been necessary if the list
would have provided that essential line in the header.
Alexander Skwar
-- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com Sichere Mail? Mail an askwar-pgp@digitalprojects.com fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ: 7328191
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 13:16:07 CDT