On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:57:36AM +0200, Aaron Craig wrote:
> At 01:22 11.06.2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >If the reply issue is really difficult for new users to deal with, why is it
> >everyone who is complaining about it has already found a workaround?
>
> My whole issue with the thing is that we've been forced to find a
> workaround. If one of the goals of good programming is to do away with
> unnecessary bullox, then shouldn't this list, as an example to beginning
> programmers, be configured *better* then the other lists out there? If
> none of us that know how to program decently would ever write code that
> required users to find workarounds, why does the list get sent in such a
> way that in order to reply to the list we have to come up with a workaround?
>
Oh dear. What *have* I stirred up here? It's not *that* important.
Personally, I prefer to do list replies manually, because ultimately it
gives me more control and my mail client of choice can do it. If the
list managers decide to munge Reply-To headers, I won't care a lot. The
purist in me says that everything inside the envelope should be mine to
control, but mailing lists are kind of a different beast. FWIW, it's
about a 50-50 split on the lists I subscribe to.
But OTOH, I don't think it's really "elitist" to make the judgement
that driving a mail UA is lower on the computer-using evolutionary scale
than programming, or even than finding, subscribing to and understanding
the mechanics of mailing lists. The general tone here is pretty friendly
when it comes to the actual Perl questions, and we've had a few ... er
... friendly tips being exchanged about how people can use their mail
software better.
Ah well, back to Perl.
rgds
rob c
