Re: Annoying Reply-To

[Mikkel Høgh <mikkel@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/10/2008, at 14.01, Bill Moran wrote:

> In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On 17/10/2008, at 13.20, Bill Moran wrote:
> >
> > > In response to "Mikkel Høgh" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > > On 17/10/2008, at 12.24, Tomasz Ostrowski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But again, how often do you want to give a personal reply only?  
> > > > That
> > > > is a valid use-case, but I'd say amongst the hundreds of mailing- 
> > > > list
> > > > replies I've written over the years, only two or three were not  
> > > > sent
> > > > back to the mailing list.
> > >
> > > You're forgetting the cost of a mistake in that case.
> > >
> > > As it stands, if you hit reply when you meant reply-to, oops,  
> > > resend.
> > >
> > > If it's changed and you hit reply when you want to send a private
> > > message
> > > to the poster, you just broadcast your private message to the world.
> >
> > And again, how often does this happen? How often do people write
> > really sensitive e-mails based on messages on pgsql-general.
>
> It happens very infrequently.  You're ignoring me and constantly  
> trying
> to refocus away from my real argument.  The frequency is not the
> justification, it's the severity that justifies it.
>
> If we save one overworked DBA per year from endangering their job  
> online,
> I say it's worth it.
>
> > How far are you willing to go to protect people against themselves?
>
> Personally, I'm willing to go so far as to expect the person to think
> about whether to hit reply or reply-to before sending the mail.  I  
> don't
> see that as unreasonable.

Well, neither is checking whether you're sending it the right place  
unreasonable. The difference here being if you have to do it each time  
you're posting to the mailing list or that once in a blue moon where  
there's something that should remain private.
So I respect

> > but having to manually add a Reply-To
> > header to each message I send to pgsql-general is not my idea of fun.
>
> I was not aware that Apple Mail was such a primitive email client.   
> You
> should consider switching to something that has a reply-to button.   
> I'm
> very disappointed in Apple.

You should read the original post. Thomas suggested "So set reply-to  
in messages you send by yourself - it will be honored.". That's what  
I'm talking about here, not "Reply All"-buttons (which it has, with  
reasonable keyboard shortcuts, even). I can also add a "Reply-To:"  
field on my composer window and even have it pre-filled for all my  
outgoing email, but the features of my MUA are not point here :)

> > You may not care about usability or user experience, but remember  
> > that
> > what seems to be correct from a technical perpective is not always  
> > the
> > "right" thing to do.
>
> As I said, consider getting a real email client if this is wasting so
> much of your time.  It doesn't cause me any undue effort.
"It's good for me, so it's good for everyone"

> Or, you could just be lonely.

I resent that you're trying to make this a personal thing.

> I think you've spent enough man hours
> complaining about this to manually work around the problem for several
> years, which blows your "this wastes too much of my valuable time"
> argument out of the water.


And it's not as much time as it is energy. I've only used this mailing- 
list for a few days, and I've already had to manually resend mails to  
the mailing-list several times. If I manage to save myself from that  
only 5 times, i figure talking this debate has been worth it :)

<<attachment: smime.p7s>>