Hello, I just replied to a mail that was sent to crux@lists.crux.nu, realizing too late that I was replying to the original sender, not to the list. Could the Reply-To headerfield of mails received from the mailinglist be set to crux@lists.crux.nu by default (note that this will leave the From field intact)? That would be more convenient. Thanks! Greetings, Sander.
*Sander van Dijk:
Hello,
I just replied to a mail that was sent to crux@lists.crux.nu, realizing too late that I was replying to the original sender, not to the list.
But it would be worse if a mail you expected to be sent only to the original sender, ended up in the list?
Could the Reply-To headerfield of mails received from the mailinglist be set to crux@lists.crux.nu by default (note that this will leave the From field intact)? That would be more convenient.
Please read this: <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html> -- Robert Bauck Hamar It is true that VI-VI-VI is the editor of the beast. – Richard M Stallman
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:28:40PM +0100, Robert Bauck Hamar wrote:
Please read this: <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
I think most of us know this opinion, but as maintainer of a bunch of other mailinglists I must say, setting the Reply-To to the list address sucks less than setting it to the Sender in
90% of all cases. It's quite rare that one only wants reply to a sender on a mailinglist, especially if the community doesn't consists of jerks.
Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://suckless.org/~arg/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
On 11/6/06, Robert Bauck Hamar <roberth@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
*Sander van Dijk:
I just replied to a mail that was sent to crux@lists.crux.nu, realizing too late that I was replying to the original sender, not to the list.
But it would be worse if a mail you expected to be sent only to the original sender, ended up in the list?
That depends on the message. For me personally this isn't a big issue (yes, I've had it happen on other mailinglists), because my reply's are usually directly related to the the original mail (which is, or at least should be, a 'public' topic, given that it was sent to a public mailinglist). Also, I try to be polite when mailing most of the time anyway, and when I don't, I usually find it justified enough to not really care who reads it and who doesn't :-). I agree that this might be different for other people though, and a private message sent public is more likely to be harmful than a public message sent private.
Please read this: <URL:http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html>
Hm, I find that most of these arguments aren't too strong (with the notable exception of "Can't Find My Way Back Home", and to some extend "Principle of Least Damage"); most seem related to the author's preferences and expectations, which simply differ from mine. Anyway, it was just a suggestion, I can live with both ways (setting and not setting Reply-To), so if people feel strongly about this I guess I'll just get used to changing the address manually or using reply-all :-) Greetings, Sander.
participants (3)
-
Anselm R. Garbe -
Robert Bauck Hamar -
Sander van Dijk