On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 11:21:31AM +0100, Alex Blewitt wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:18:47AM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote: > > >On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >>Not a committer, but -1 for the following reasons: > > > >-1 me too! > > > >I am using Mutt, which ahs no problems with mailing lists > >and i have now the problems which you described below .. > > I think that was two -1's with many +1's in the list ... >
ok ok, am love democraty even when myself belongs to the minority :-) Chris > >># It violates the principle of minimal munging. > > Sorry, don't know what that is. > > >># It provides no benefit to the user of a reasonable mailer.\ > > Talking on a list (by default) is talking to the entire group. The > Reply button uses the Reply-To, so the default option is the correct > one. > > By contrast, sending a mail to an individual is still very easy; use > 'Reply All' (or whatever) and delete the mailing list address. > > >># It limits a subscriber's freedom to choose how he or she will > >>direct a > >>response. > > It's still possible to send it only to the originator, using the > technique described above or cut'n'paste for the address. Failing that, > typing the address manually is also a possibility, so it doesn't limit > freedom. It just changes the default. > > >># It actually reduces functionality for the user of a reasonable > >>mailer. > > Reasonable mailers have cut'n'paste and Reply All as described above. > > >># It removes important information, which can make it impossible to > >>get > >>back to the message sender. > > It doesn't remove any information; you can still do Reply All where > necessary. > > >># It penalizes the person with a reasonable mailer in order to coddle > >>those running brain-dead software. > > I'm not sure what you mean by that. My mailer may not be brain dead, > but it certainly works in the way I expect it to. > > >># It violates the principle of least work because complicates the > >>procedure for replying to messages. > > Replying to a discussion group should go to the list, not the > individual person. After all, you're subscribed to the list, aren't you? > > >># It violates the principle of least surprise because it changes the > >>way a > >>mailer works. > > Reply-To is specifically defined for replying to a list. Mailers use > it, because that's the way they work. Granted, that when a user hasn't > come across it before then they may not be expecting it, but just > because it is unexpected doesn't mean that it's changed it :-) > > >># It violates the principle of least damage, and it encourages a > >>failure > >>mode that can be extremely embarrassing -- or worse. > > Surely, only for messages that don't belong on a group discussion > anyway? > > >># Your subscribers don't want you to do it. Or, at least the ones who > >>have > >>bothered to read the docs for their mailer don't want you to do it. > > Personally I got the impression that there were more 'yays' than 'nays' > in the group. Don't know if that was the case, but I only recalled > seeing two individual's -1 votes. > > >>http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > > A good description of some of these disadvantages (largely cut and > pasted into the original message). > > I suspect that there are some mailing lists where the preferable mode > is to reply to individuals (for example, the *.forsale.* newsgroups > spring to mind). But a mailing list which is actually a discussion list > should be in the open, and the default behaviour should be to discuss > ideas in the open. > > Hopefully, but putting together e-mails and discussing both pros and > cons, and letting the others read through them, is the best way to > achieve a consensus for a development group. Therefore I concur with > the Reply-To feature. > > If you want to bring up any of these issues and discuss them with the > group, reply to this message and it will go through. If you want to > bring up any issues with me personally, then use the Reply to All/Reply > to Group feature and delete the geronimo-dev address. > > Regards, > > Alex.
