Todd Denniston wrote: >>I agree, Paul. The reply address should be occupied by the list's address. > > I could agree ... if I had not seen the problems it can cause. > example: the MUSCLE list (smart cards) > http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle > > First: to me this breaks the rule of least surprise. > that is: if I only hit reply, not reply all, I expect to be sending only to > the person who sent the originating email.
Heh, I thought this might be a "flame war" topic. I guess it depends on what you're used to. Every other list I've ever been on has sent replies to the list, so it did surprise me that it didn't work that way here - I'm expecting emails from lists to have different behaviour to emails from individuals. > The second problem: because of the way it rewrites the headers, if I hit > `reply to all` it still only includes the mailing list in the to lines, even > though I wanted it to give me the person's address so I could cheaply take > it off the mailing list. My experience of lists is that 99% of the time I want to reply to the whole list, so it makes sense to me to have that as the default. > If someone really decides to make the change, please set the rewriter to put > both the originator and the mailing list on the reply to line. I've also got several duplicate replies to messages I've posted because people have sent to the list and cc'd me as well (maybe thinking I might not be subscribed). My thoughts are that if you want a reply it's courteous to be subscribed to the list, even if it's only for a short while. Sorry for the OT list pollution if this is a regular topic that comes up... But it might help with the problem of disjointed threads in the archives. Paul.
