>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> My whole issue with the thing is that we've been forced to find a
Aaron> workaround. If one of the goals of good programming is to do away
Aaron> with unnecessary bullox, then shouldn't this list, as an example to
Aaron> beginning programmers, be configured *better* then the other lists out
Aaron> there?
It already is. It doesn't force a reply-to, where beginners
invariably end up replying to the list when they mean to reply to a
person.
As for "programming", there's nothing that can be done about the fact
that *your* mail client sends mail to both the list and the individual
person. The list software doesn't see the other mail. However,
if a recipient doesn't want two copies, there are two things that
each individual can do:
1) put in some sort of message-ID unique-ing facility. I have
that... it works great.
2) if an individual doesn't want *two* replies, they can add
"reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" to their own mail headers.
But don't break it for the rest of us. Contrary to what someone else
said in this thread, the lists *I* subscribe to that do reply-to
munging are in the minority, and of those lists, usually one message
every two weeks is "oops, accidentally sent to the list, that was
supposed to be private". That's just silly.
Reply-to munging: just say no.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
