At 10:33 08.06.2001 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
I've got to take issue with this. I use Eudora, which for just about
everything else is a nice program. Though it's not 100% free of problems
and bugs -- it does not have any options for handling lists -- I don't
think I should be forced to switch mail clients just so that I can avoid
copying and pasting the list address into my reply every time. As a side
note, perl-beginners and beginners-cgi are the *only* two lists of the many
lists I'm subscribed to that don't automatically set the reply-to to the
list address. Since 99% of the time one responds a mail from the list, the
response is meant for the list as a whole, I think the labor of changing
the recipient should go to the few times you want to respond to one
person. Am I the only one that replies mostly to the list?
Aaron Craig
Programming
iSoftitler.com
