On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:55:28PM -0500, Karen Cravens wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2001, at 19:49, Mark S wrote:
>
> > Please reply to the list for the benefit of others.
>
> Is there a standard rant about lists that don't use a reply-to, or do I
> have to write my own?
>
Nah. Just get a Mail UA that knows how to handle lists. I'm personally
on the "List Manager Setting Reply-To Considered Harmful" side of that
argument. If you use a decent MUA, you can tell it to do list replies
("L" in mutt, for example) and tell it in the configuration what lists
you're subscribed to. That leaves the Reply-To field avaiable for
individual posters to set when appropriate without it being stomped on
by the list manager. Tagging the subject lines with [PERLBEG] or
somesuch would be nice, though.
I know there's two sides to this, but I do think that if someone is
clued enough to manage to sign up for the list, and is advanced enough
as a computer user to be writing programs, they ought to be able to
drive their own mail client.
Oh man, I've just gone and looked at Outlook Express, and there's no
list handling features *at all*. Kids, don't use Outlook Express.
Now Outlook proper, I can understand some poor folks have forced on
them by corporate standards, but there is no excuse for Outlook
Express.
> (Also insert standard rant here about RFC2822 not properly
> addressing (no pun intended) the issue. Bah.)
What's RFC2822 got to do with it? Seriously, I'm not sure why this sort
of thing would be in scope for that RFC.
Oh, and while we're on the topic of rants, can we please pay more
attention to trimming? Especially .sigs and disclaimers (and PGP keys,
oh my!). Is that something the list owners will pick up from here, or
do we forward FAQ requests to a separate address?
Sorry folks, I know we don't need a meta-thread every three days on list
etiquette. I'll stick to Perl from now on.
cheers
rob c
donning the asbestos undies
