Re: [NTLK] [OT] reply-to

From: Steven M. Scotten (splicer_at_paroxysm.com)
Date: Tue Nov 13 2001 - 17:29:46 EST


With all due respect, PLEASE NO.

"reply-all" means reply to everyone. "reply" means reply to the sender.
On a discussion list, the sender is the list, and that's how it should
be.

R., your mailer is prerelease, and you should probably petition the
makers of that software to include a feature that most mailers do,
which is to ask you which address to use when reply-to and from differ
from one another.

Eliminating reply-to will mean eliminating the ANSWERS to important
technical questions by default, which means that we will hear the same
questions over and over again as the answers remain not public. It will
make the maintenance of the FAQs much more difficult and discourage
open discussion. Is that really what we want on this list?

Ahhh, well, it's a rhetorical question and I don't really want it
answered. I just wanted to add my voice to the din on the side of
keeping reply-to set to the list.

Steve

On 13 Nov 2001 14:05:17 -0800, R Pickett wrote:

>On Tue, 2001-11-13 at 07:16, Jon Glass wrote:
>> For me, surprising would be a reply to the original poster, the least damage
>> would be to automatically reply to the list, and absolutely, the least work
>> is being able to reply to the list without having to delete the original
>> replyto address, and insert the list address.

--
This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net
To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or
	mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 20:02:44 EST