On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, David Z Maze wrote: > > Odd considering that so far most every reply that I've received > > (except yours of course) included two copies. And the fact that you > > can't just hit "reply" and have it go back to the list - it wants to > > only reply to the sender. > > Your mailer doesn't have a "reply to all" button? Get a better one, > Debian has lots.
The problem we're discussing, though, is that "reply to all" means exactly that - to *all*. Two separate e-mail addresses, one of which will bounce what it gets to a bunch of people - including the person who got a copy of their very own. Pine (my e-mail program of least learning curve) goes nicely in reply-to-all - as long as I don't mind moving the Cc: address to the To: address. What's needed (I'm spitballing here) is a "reply to Cc:" or "Reply to List-Post:" feature. Considering that most people appear to be unable to work out the difference between 'Reply' and 'Reply to all' (at least, judging by the crap I get from random idio^H^H^H^Hpeople I get at work), 'Reply to CC' would just be way over the top... > > I'm surprised the list doesn't set the reply-to field. > > Google for "reply-to considered harmful"; the upshot is that if I want http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html, to make it easier (anyone thinking Reply-to munging is a good idea should definitely read it). I'm no fan of the practice, but it does fix the problem at hand - duplicate copies. The slight benefit is outweighed by the problems it causes - nicely covered in the article above. Of course, depending on your POV, it might be seen as less resource intensive just to set up a procmail duplicate-killer instead of trying to educate the entire Internet on proper e-mail technique. Considering that we haven't even un-TOFU'd the world, I don't think there's going to be much hope in the list etiquette arena... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <disclaimer.h> Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
