Matthew Frederico wrote:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 15:09, Julian Hall wrote:Hmm, I think a short intro as to why Reply-To list is not set by default is in order. From my experience in the past, this option causes more pain than joy, and is generally a bad move. I'll also mention that people who request this option almost always are the same people who don't set up a mail filter to file mailing list messages into a different folder.
Hi Duane,
As I said in my last mail I am a newbie to Linux, although not to computers
having used abused etc for nigh on 20 years. I personally would prefer to
have the Reply-To set to the list, as all the other mailing lists I
subscribe to are. It seems, if you will pardon me, illogical to receive an
email from one source, only to click Reply and have it sent somewhere else.
I second this. Even though I do have a "reply to list" feature .. This
has often been the source of much wondering why my reply never got
posted to the list...
This is a summary of "http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html";
1. You already do have a "Reply to list" button in your mailer. It's called "Reply to all". So you have two buttons. "Reply", which means "Reply to whoever wrote the message", and "reply to all", which means "Reply to the writer, and the list".
2. If Duan sets up a "reply-to" header, it means both buttons become the same one. You are left with no way of replying only to the author. BAD
2.5 - consider how many operations you need to do in order to simulate the alternative option. If there is no "reply to" and you want to send message only to the list you will need to hit "Reply to all", and erase the private emails included in the "to". If there is a "Reply to" and you want to send a message only to the author you will need to copy the author's email address (can one of the newbies here please explain to me how you can do /that/ in Outlook? I know, but do you?), hit "reply", delete the mailing list's address, and paste the author's address.
3. Consider the harm in case of a mistake. If there is no "reply-to" munging, then in case of hitting "Reply" instead of "reply to", a message meant to be public was sent in private by mistake. A tiny annoyance for the receiver, but no real harm done. If there is "reply-to", and a writer of a message meant to be private forgot to do the above painful procedure, a message meant to be private is now public. There is no backing up on that one.
4. The author may not even be contactable. Some people post with "from" set to one address (say, their work address), but their "reply to" set to the address at which they can actually read your reply. When the mailing list overwrites that info, all contact info about the person is lost, and there is no way to contact them.
So why do people who don't use filters like the "reply to"? Because otherwise they get two copies of answers to mailing list messages. If you use proper filtering (based on List-ID headers), you will get one copy in the mailing list folder, and the second copy will be in your inbox. To me, that is a good thing (I get personal replies to messages I sent, plus a copy in the mailing list so the thread is not broken). People who have improperly set up filters get two copies at the same place, which is annoying.
In short, I think adding "reply-to" is a bad idea.
Shachar
-- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
_______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
