First of all, "Thanks!" to Jay for getting the list going again. The
withdrawal symptoms are beginning to wear off now :-)
On Feb 2, 23:56, DASTAR COM wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Jay West wrote:
>
> > I've always wondered why the list was set up the way it was.
> Because:
>
> b) who the hell wants to have to read the same message TWICE? (once from
> the list and once from the replier)
Sellam has a point here; it is considered bad netiquette to do that, and
that's why newsreaders, for example, won't get the GNSA if they allow a
followup posting to also be emailed to the author automatically. However,
this isn't usenet, and it's easy in most mailers to remove the extra
address. I hope people do so, and I hope they'll also forgive me when I
forget :-)
> c) it's an incredible pain in the ass having to edit the reply-to
> addresses for every damn message you reply to
Virtually all mailers have a "reply all" function. I can think of just one
exception, and that's a mailer intended as a local delivery agent, not a
mail user agent.
> Besides, despite what the aforementioned article says, the previous list
> reply-to mechanism was working, and working well. The article is just a
> masturbatory entreaty for one persons personal preferences, and does not
> really take into account convenience for the overall list.
No, it isn't. There are good reasons for the "Reply-to:" header to
override the "From:" address, where the "From:" address is not valid or
correct for incoming mail. That's more common than many people think. If
you use "Reply-to:" for list redirection, that breaks, and irrevocably
removes the correct address for replies to the author.
Although old habits die hard, and it will take a little getting used to, I
prefer the new method.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Received on Thu Feb 03 2000 - 03:33:01 GMT