> Von: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 17:24:01, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> >
> > > This is intentional - google for "reply to considered harmful".
> >
> > This might have been of concern years ago, before people were used to
> > mailing lists which do set the Reply-to header. Nowadays, I'd say that
> the
> > opposite is true, since setting the Reply-to header seems common
> practice
> > (at least if I look at the mailing lists I'm following, there are only 2
> > that don't set the header).
> The problem is still the same.
> It is better to accidentally mail only one person and need to resend to
> the list than it is to accidentally send mail to many people.

Well, let's just say that I tend to ignore private mail that is sent to me
from a mailing list participant if it still has the subject used on the
list, especially if it still contains the list markers ([gimp-user] etc).
Sometimes, this is just accidently - I get the mail, rush through it, don't
have an answer readily available and since it still has the marker, I assume
it went to the list and someone else might answer it.

Sometimes, a question pops up what makes me think "why couldn't the sender
have posted this to the list or have searched the archives?". Especially
when I don't have much time, I knowingly ignore these messages.

Or, in just one sentence:

When posting to a mailing list, I expect replies (either to or from the
list) to end up on the list.

The following is IMO:

Not munging the reply-to header should be considered harmful. Not doing it
makes it harder than needed for many people - usually the people who would
be able to help the person who posted the question - to reply to as many
people as possible. And making this harder is is not the purpose of a
mailing list, is it?


Weitersagen: GMX DSL-Flatrates mit Tempo-Garantie!
Ab 4,99 Euro/Monat: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to