Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In my opinion, the mailing list software should include an appropriate > Reply-To header field in every mail sent to the list so that replies are > automatically sent to the list. [...] > Reply-To fields from several other lists I'm subscribed to and wonder > why it isn't applied to the Haskell related lists. Are there any > arguments against it?
Yes. With a Reply-To: set to the list, it becomes more difficult to reply privately, and the result (at least on the lists I've been subscribed to that implements this policy) is that the list is polluted with mail intended privately, quickly followed up by apologies for sending private mail to the list. Having a list-intended mail end up in somebody's personal mail instead is of course a risk, but at least it's an error that affects fewer people, keeping the noise down on the list. And, IME, it's also a less common error. Having the list specify a Reply-To: also precludes me from specifying my own; perhaps I would like private replies in order to post a summary later to the list, perhaps I would like responses to go somewhere else (haskell-cafe, say). The appropriate list address is in the To:-header, and as far as I can tell, most mail user agents have the facility of replying to all adressees, which includes the list, *or* just to the originator. (If you have an extensible MUA, you could also hack it to use the List-Post: field added by Mailman.) The real hassle without Reply-To: is IMHO that participants in debates end up receiving multiple replies if people are too lazy to edit the headers; but then smart MUAs stow away duplicates. -kzm -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
