On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 06:58:49 +0200, Jan Kohnert <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Mittwoch 01 September 2010, 06:20:06 schrieben Sie: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is broken; in a group discussion, surely this should be: "Kaz Kylheku shriebt:". Also, why did you put both me and the mailing list in the To header? Usually, the list goes into Cc. >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:19:56 +0200, Jan Kohnert wrote: >> > OK, I don't like Flamewars, so I'll stop here. But one thing I have to >> > add: You are using Mutt, according to your headers. Mutt in fact knows >> > list-reply, >> > at least according to [1]. So why not using this? That would solve all >> > your problems. :) >> >> List reply is a poor idea, because it assumes that the >> sender is subscribed to the list. The assumption is only valid for >> lists that are configured not to allow posting by non-members. [ snip ...] > Who is talking about list-only reply??? I'm not. It was you who mentioned the mutt list-reply above, advising Dave Rogers to use it. That is in fact a "list-only reply" function (I checked the latest online mutt documentation). Your suggestion that David Rogers should use list-reply, and that it would solve all his problems, is wrongheaded. Nobody should use this misfeature, nor implement it it a mail client. > lilypond-user sets different mail headers, one of it is called "List-Post". Yes, lilypond-user does set that header. But, ironically, I don't see this header anywhere in your message that I'm replying to just now. Could it be that it didn't pass through the mailing list, but went directly to me? Doh! Since not all list traffic passes through the list processor, it's useless to rely on headers that it adds for purposes like sorting into folders and replying. The most reliable way to identify list traffic is that the list address, like [email protected] is among the recipients (either via To: or Cc:). > And *you* are free to choose: > - using reply answers to the OP (or the reply-to he set in his MUA, which > would be overwritten by a forced reply-to from the list) > - using reply-all answers to the OP *and* the list > - using reply-list answers to the list (so if the OP isn't subscribed, he > won't get the answer) Sure, you are also free to whack yourself on the head with a stick; that doesn't make it a good idea. You're not convincing me that there is value in replying to a message in such a way that, specifically, the author of that message may or may not excluded from the reply, yet that message is redirected to a whole mailing list. Such a function certainly cannot be regarded as the proper way to reply to list discussions all the time, and it's probably a bad idea to train yourself into a habit of using it. Indeed, is it even valid to call it a reply function, if the so-called reply doesn't necessarily go to the original sender? This is more like forwarding than replying. It's difficult to justify having such reply function supported in the e-mail client in a prominent way (like, say, a third reply button). See, people who don't dig deeply into e-mail client behavior might be misled into thinking that it's the right way to reply to a list). It's about as useful as a function which replies only to the users whose name starts with W, or any other subset which arbitrarily excludes recipients. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
