On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:47 AM, John Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:27:01PM -0700, Paul G. Allen wrote: > > Brad Beyenhof wrote: > > > > >> > > >> Clearly he has an autoresponder for messages. However, his responses > get > > >> broadcast to the list, initiating a new response. > > > > > >Which is, of course, one of the reasons for a mailing list *not* to > > >add a Reply-To: header with the list address... > > Life is full of situations where the best way to handle a given > situation isn't 100% perfect. I despise lists that set the Reply-To: to > the poster... that's how knowledge is lost, the archives are useless, > and the same questions get asked over and over and over again.
I was not suggesting that I prefer the Reply-To: set to the poster. I actually prefer the Reply-To: not be munged at all, so that Reply goes to the poster and Reply All goes to the poster and the list. For me, the default action when responding to list posts is Reply All for this very reason. However, if the members of the list are responsible, Reply-To: the list is fine. Autoresponders are indeed evil... :) > Why can't someone just unsubscribe the address in question? This has > happened three times now. Hear, hear! -- Brad Beyenhof http://augmentedfourth.com I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. ~ Galileo Galilei, astronomer and physicist (1564-1642) -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-newbie
