On Saturday 22 March 2008 06:33, Da Rock wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 22:38 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > --On March 22, 2008 1:10:40 PM +1000 Da Rock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 02:58 +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:57AM +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> > >> > This may have been suggested or discussed before, but is there a
> > >> > reason why the reply-to on this list isn't the list itself instead
> > >> > of the person who posted? Ie reply-to: email@example.com
> > >>
> > >> Because many people who ask questions here are not subscribed to the
> > >> list and thus would not see any answers that were sent only to the
> > >> list.
> > >
> > > Well that certainly explains it, but it does surprise me. I thought
> > > you'd have to subscribe to post.
> > And *I* thought it was proper etiquette to only reply to the list.
> Me too.
This discussion takes place regularly on every mailing list in existence. The
main arguments against it seem to be that a) it might trash an existing
reply-to header and make it impossible to send an individual reply; b) in the
event of user error it fails safely - list reply ends up going to an
individual - rather than the potentially catastrophic
private-reply-to-publically-archived-mailing-list failure. Google for
reply-to munging considered harmful for more argument on both sides.
As regards copying the original recipients, this list specifically requests
it: check the regular posting titled ``how to get best results from
freebsd-questions'', particularly para VII.6.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"