Re: [OT] Developer lists and Reply-To header
At 07:20 AM 9/23/2004, Mladen Turk wrote: Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. I think almost all other lists has the 'Replay-To' header set to the list itself. I mean, I'm receiving the messages from the list and not from the particular poster, so I should reply to the list, right? Search for reply-to considered harmful on Google and you'll find more information than you ever wanted to read about both sides of the issue. I found myself couple of times replying to the original sender by default, while my intention was to reply to the list. The solution is either to 'reply to all' (why would anyone wish to receive two messages about the same subject?) or doing that by hand. The big question is which is worse, sending a message to the list when your intention was to send it to a single person, sending a message to a single person when your intention was to send it to the list. You'll find large numbers of people on each side. Some mailing list software is smart enough to not send an extra copy to members that will be receiving it directly.
Re: [OT] Developer lists and Reply-To header
Greg Marr wrote: Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. Search for reply-to considered harmful on Google and you'll find more information than you ever wanted to read about both sides of the issue. If you meant the article by Chip Rosenthal it didn't convince me. It's just a personal opinion about his favorite emailer (elm). The big question is which is worse, sending a message to the list when your intention was to send it to a single person. The worse is as is where httpd list mailer actually does add Reply-To header, while apr's does not. Also almost any other ASF hosted mailing list (that I'm member of) sets that header. As a poster I don't expect to receive a separate mail 'CC-ed' to me personally if it's already posted on the list as an reply, and that is quite often, cause (myself too) people just hit 'reply to all'. Anyhow, the subject starts with [OT], so it's not such a big deal thought :). Regards, MT. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [OT] Developer lists and Reply-To header
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:20:49 +0200, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. the reason NOT to do it is that it is unintuitive to most people (okay, just me and Mladen) and causes needless vigilance to fix the To/Cc (but [EMAIL PROTECTED] acts in the more intuitive manner, setting Reply-To to the mailing list)
RE: [OT] Developer lists and Reply-To header
From: Jeff Trawick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:50 PM On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:20:49 +0200, Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Is there any reason why apr, apr-util, httpd mailing lists have Reply-To header set to the sender and not to the list itself. the reason NOT to do it is that it is unintuitive to most people (okay, just me and Mladen) and causes needless vigilance to fix the To/Cc (but [EMAIL PROTECTED] acts in the more intuitive manner, setting Reply-To to the mailing list) Which I would have no issue with fixing... :^) Sander
Re: [OT] Developer lists and Reply-To header
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Mladen Turk wrote: I found myself couple of times replying to the original sender by default, while my intention was to reply to the list. The solution is either to 'reply to all' (why would anyone wish to receive two messages about the same subject?) or doing that by hand. We all just reply-to-all typically. We've gone back and forth about this many times in the past and I suppose just ended up deciding that most of us preferred it this way rather than the other way. Shrug. --Cliff
