On 1/12/06, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 05:21:54PM +0100, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > > On 1/12/06, Netocrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Isak Savo wrote: > > > > 2006/1/12, Axel Liljencrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >>On 1/12/06, Isak Savo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You know you can force a "Reply-To:"-header for all mails to this > > > > list, right? In the mailman configuration: > > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/admin/fish-users > > > > > > > > Even though they don't recommend it, I think it's a good idea... > > > > > > One reason it's not recommended is that the consequences of an > > > unintended reply-all - a publicised and potentially embarassing personal > > > response that can't be unpublicised - are far worse than an unintended > > > reply-to-sender-only - a private response that the recipient would have > > > received anyway and that can easily be resent to the list. > > > > [Axel's common mistaken button pressing vs. rare flaming of people] > > > > One has to weigh the seriousness of the problems against their > > relative frequency. Seeing how I'm the doofus who can't press the > > right button I'm inclined to think that the first problem is so much > > more common that it should get precedense, but it's not a strong > > conviction. Does anyone else have a strong opinion on the subject? > > I'll throw in a vote for leaving things as is. MUAs should properly > handle things if configured correctly. For example, mutt has a > configuration setting to let it know what lists you are subscribed to. > You can reply directly to the list by pressing 'L' instead of the normal > 'r' for reply to sender. People can also use their email headers[0] to > tell other people how to respond. I could (and should) have mutt set: > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > since I'm subscribed and don't need people to reply to me personally. > People who aren't subscribed should have their MUA set: > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] > > so that they are included in replies. This should only be done from the > sender's side and not munged by the mailing list, though. I've found a > decent site[1] that I usually refer to when this topic comes up. I > think it offers a good explanation of the pros/cons.
It's the eternal problem of when one work around bugs in other pieces of software. I tend to be against most such fixes since it'll bloat the sourcecode, lead to confusing corner cases and means less incentive for the other softwares programmers to fix things. I'll leave things as they are and try not to mess up too often. > > James > > [0] For some reason, it's become common practice lately to use > Mail-Followup-To instead of using Reply-To correctly. The examples > I gave work just the same using M-F-T instead of R-T. > [1] http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- Axel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ Fish-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
