On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 10:03 -0700, Shane Hathaway wrote: > http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/node11.html
*yawn* You're obviously new here. Stick around for another half decade,
kid, and then we can talk.
The fact of the matter is that reply-to munging works. For example, the
SLLUG list was basically dead until reply-to munging was enabled. Sure,
there are great theoretical reasons to not use reply-to munging, but
there's a difference between theory and reality.
The reality is that the most important thing is consistency and
convenience. I would guess that greater than 90% of the time, a reply is
intended for the entire list so optimizing for that makes good old
fashioned sense. And don't bring out the tired old weak argument that a
good MUA provides an easy reply-to-list feature. The fact is that some
of the most common MUA's don't. Again, reality not theory.
As for consistency, Harley has only himself to blame because (with minor
periods when hans abused his power) the list has been munging for a very
long time now.
Yes, I'm being insulting. Deliberately so. This is an old battle fought
many times and I don't look forward to its return. If it does, I blame
you. (And Josh Coates and Mister E because, well, I can!)
--
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
google talk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:0 # copy & paste for your convenience
* ^From:.*sjansen@
/dev/null # /ignore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
