As I'm currently on a dial-up connection - circumstances no doubt shared with many others on the list - I'd really appreciate not receiving all these <ambit> web site listings via e-mail.I am on big pipe but it still takes time to go through the tofu ( like spam but not as commercial )
From the etiquette guidelines at http://www.mediascot.org/ambitIs this an arty joke? If the people who ran this really wanted to help people consider whether a reply should go to the whole list or only to the originator of the message they would have set it so 'reply' goes to originator and 'reply to all' goes to them and list. In that the list is set up to limit choice now these 2 buttons on my email client do the same both go to the list. This is where the problem lies, if one does not like how the list is set up then one can leave or ask those who run it to change set up.
4. Consider whether your reply should go to the whole list or only to the originator of the message (replies automatically go to the whole list).
Please change policy on Reply-To: munging on mailing listDo not support effectively forcing users to reply to the lists by having a mailing list set a reply-to header back to the list (setting a reply-to to the list makes it from inconvenient to impossible depending on the mail reader to send an answer to the original poster only).The main reasons are to provide an consistent behavior for all the
lists on sourceforge (it is typically confusing if some lists force a reply-to
while the other ones let the user decide if the answer should go the author
(reply) or the list (reply to all/group reply)) and to avoid reply-to wars
with very broken autoresponders: Other reasons are that Reply-To: munging effectively prevents a
user from posting a question or bug report to a list without being subscribed
since he or she will never get answers since they'll be forced back to the
list (some consider this a good thing sometimes, your mileage may vary). However, as there are people who believe reply-to munging is a good
thing, Simon Hill countered the above page by writing aReply-To Munging
Considered Useful page, but the arguments are very debatable. One rebutal
was posted
on the mailman lists. So what does this mean for the list users?The quick version is that if you want to reply to the author, you should use the reply function of your mail client and if you want to reply to the list, you should use "reply to all" (or "group reply" depending on how it's called in your mail client).Some mail clients (but unfortunately not all) also have a list reply feature, which only replies to the list. The main complaint against the lack of reply-to munging is that
receipients receive two copies of the mail (one from the sender, and one
from the list). Some people actually want this because they can receive your
reply to their mail faster and others want two different copies to file in
different folders (your private mail is received first and filed in a personal
folder whereas the list copy goes in the list folder). :0 Wh: msgid.lock
| formail -D 8192 msgid.cache
For the remaining people who do not want two copies and can't remove duplicates
on their side, the next version of mailman will allow on a per user basis,
to not receive a copy of a post if you were already Cced in the mail headers.We do not have an ETA for the upgrade yet (we need stable code to run on SF), but we're hoping that it will happen fairly soon now. Other complaints based on arguments like "my list users don't want
to/can't handle selecting reply to all when they want to reply to the list"
or "not having a forced reply-to prevents communication and sharing" are
just not very convincing. Users can learn, and users of Sourceforge are
supposed to be more computer literate than average users, they can figure
out if they want to reply to the list or to the original author only,
and use the appropriate function in their mail client. |
http://psychogeography.org.uk
-- http://j12.org/sb/
