On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Derek Martin wrote:
> That may be so, but the vocal majority appears to rather dislike it at
> the moment.
Well, so far, out of the 300 plus list subscribers, we have ten or so
against Reply-To Munging, one for it, and one who abstains. That is hardly a
representative sample. :-)
Now, maybe the other 288 sub'ers want to get rid of Reply-To Munging as
well, but I would hesitate before speaking for them. :-)
> Sure, in principal I agree with you 100%, but I receive often over 400
> e-mails a day, and I reply to close to half of those.
One would think you would get better at it after doing it so often.... ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
> manually entering addresses for people I rarely correspond with (such as
> list members who post very infrequently) and therefore don't have in my
> address book is very time consuming, perhaps unnecessarily so.
Again, if you have to manually manage addresses when replying to mail, you
need to upgrade from the original BSD mail client to something written in the
1980s. ;-)
> Besides which, there are a fair amount of new users popping in and out
> here, many of which may not ever have seen or heard of the reply-to header
> and would never expect that when they reply to a post from a buddy...
Conversely, said newbies might reasonably expect replies to a mailing list
message to go to the mailing list.
> They might even reveal embarassing details of some recent caper they
> engaged in.
<cough>squeegee<cough> ;-)
> (You want rationalization? I can rationalize with the best of 'em, baby!)
You want sarcasm? I can sarcas... um... hmmmm... er...
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| "People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading." |
| -- Logan Pearsall Smith |
**********************************************************
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
**********************************************************
