On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> Some time in the not-too-distant past, this list's reply-to field got
> filled in with its own address.
Yes, it was done at the request of <mumble> list members. The rationale was
something like, "This is an open discussion list, so it only makes sense to
make the default be to keep discussing things."
> This has caused numerous replies, from not only me, but also a number of
> other people, which were intended for the originator only, to be posted to
> the list by mistake.
I maintain that software (mis)configuration is no excuse for not checking
the destination address of outgoing mail before you invoke the "Send"
function. Regardless of how a mailing list operates, you should think before
you post. :-)
> I know I'm not the only one who would like to see this reply-to behavior
> go away...
... and there will be doubtless those who want it to stay. *sigh*
> I also think it would help improve the S/N ratio somewhat.
Oh boy. Another long meta-topic thread started in the name of preserving
the signal-to-noise ratio. ;-)
There must be a Law of Usenet, somewhere, that says that any thread started
for the purposes of conversing bandwidth is the most likely to waste it.
(If there isn't, I hereby declare the above to be Scott's First Law of
Usenet, (C), (TM), (R), and Patent Pending. ;-)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Bill Freeman wrote:
> 2. It would be more convenient for me because sender's e-mail addresses
> are often much longer than "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Any decent mail program will offer you the option of using or ignoring the
"Reply-To" header. :)
For example, in Pine, make sure "reply-always-uses-reply-to" is DISabled.
This causes Pine to ask if you want to honor Reply-To headers (when present)
for each message. Answer "No", and you are asked if you want to "Reply to all
recipients". Answer "Yes" to that, and you get all the addresses in the
header, which you can then edit as you please.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, mike ledoux wrote:
> ... I'm going to send along a pointer to an article I found a while back
> entitled "Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful"...
>
> http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
In the interests of presenting both sides of the story, here is "Reply-To
Munging Considered Useful":
http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
> If votes are to be made, put me down as against setting Reply-To.
For the record, I abstain. :-)
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|"Ten thousand years wasn't enough... no lifetime was enough, unless you lived|
| it in such a way as to make it enough." -- Larry Niven, "Cautionary Tales" |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
